mm 


J^p/^lvl-i'. 


Wi 


r-n 


,\WEUNIVERS/^ 


^lOSANCElfj*^ 
o 


aMEUNIVERS//, 


'%a3AIN(l-3WV^ 


^lOSANCElfx>. 


^<!/OJI]V0JO^ 


^(i/Odll\ 


>;i,OFCAtlF0%       ^OFCALl 


<ri]3DNvsoi^     "^yaaMNnmv        ^(^Abvaaii^ 


^^o\}in 


:l 


^tllBRARYQc. 


-^^lUBRARYGc^ 


^<!/0JnV3-JO^ 


so 


^\ijmm,       ^OF-CAllFOff/^ 


.^WEUNIVERS/^ 


o 
<rjl33NVS01^ 


.^WE•UNIVER5•/A 


%mm['^    ^^omnw^      •^■n\mi%^\^ 


%il3AII 


m 
=0 


C3 


5WEUNIVERS//V 


^lOSANCElfx^ 
8  "*' 


^TilJONVSOl^       '^/5a3AINn3WV 


,^WEUNiVER5/A 

t-— - 

=5  ■   ,  ,y      J  c> 


-^t-llBRARYOc. 


30 

'%ojnv3-jo^ 


^UIBR 


^.!/ojm 


^V^OSANCElfx^         ^OFCALIFO/?^       ^-OFCAl 


^TjijDNVsoi^     "^/iaaAiNa-JWV        ^(?Aavijaii#      '-^oxm 


^llIBRARYQc 


^ILIBRARYQ^^ 


^^ 


juiTi  iiJiTl  it^i 


,^WEUNIVER% 


^10S7\N 


^WEUNIVERJ-//, 


^lOSANCElfj^, 

o 


o 
"^■TilJONVSOl^ 


aweunivers-za 


-< 

^vWSANCElfj-^ 


-5^H!BRARYQc.       -s^HIBRARYQ^ 


'^(tfojiivDjo'^    %ojnv}jo=^ 


^OFCAIIFO/?^      ^OFCAIIFO% 


£?       55. 


<rji30Nvsoi^^      "^/^aMiNOJWv        ^f^AavaaiH^      ^c^Aavaan-^^ 


^tLIBRARYo^^ 


^^lllBRARYGc^ 


.^MEUNIVER% 


%0JI1V3J0'^       "^ii/OJWJJO^  <rii30KVS01^''        %a3AIN(l-3y^^ 


A>:lOSANCElfj> 
o 


^OFCAIIFO% 


^OFCAIIF0% 


«AWEl)NIVER% 


^<?Aava8n-^^      >&AiivaaiH^       ^qijonvsoi^ 


^lOSANCElfj> 

o 


^Ail3AINn-3W^^ 


,\\^EUNIVER% 


^lOSANGElfj-^ 
s 


^tUBRARYQ^;^       ^^^IIIBRARYQ^ 


^TilJONVSOl^'^       %a3AINn-3WV^         ^(i/OJIlVD-JO"^       -^itfOJIlVD-JO^ 


aWEUNIVERS^^ 


vvlOSANCEl% 


<ril30KVS01^        '^/5J13AINfl-3V\V 


^•OFCAIIFO/?^      ^.OFCAIIFO/?^ 


^<?Aiiviian-^^      >&Aav}ian# 


^^tllBRARYQ/^       A^^l•lIBRARYQ^ 

iJJiTi  iJUlTi 


v^WEUNIVER%       ^lOSANCElfj> 


"THE   SYSTEM" 


AS    UNCOVERED    BY 


1  he  San  r  ranciscoCiraft  Prosecution 

BY 

FP.ANKLIN    HIGHBORN 

(Author    of    "The    Story    of    the    California    Legislature    of    1909"; 

"The   Story   of   the    California    Legislature    of    1911";    and    "The 

Story   of   the    California   Legislature   of    1913.") 


'It  is  well  enough,  my  fellow-citizens,  to  meet  as  we  do 
to-night,  and  to  applaud  the  sentiments  of  patriotism, 
and  to  echo  the  voice  of  indignation  uttered  upon  this 
rostrum.  But  another  and  more  imperative  duty  de- 
volves upon  every  one  of  us  individually,  and  that  is 
to  give  his  and  her  moral  support  to  the  officers  of  the 
law.  We  must  not  content  ourselves  by  merely  adopt- 
ing a  set  of  resolutions,  and  then  going  home  and 
forgetting  about  it,  placing  all  responsibility  upon  the 
constituted  authorities.  This  is  not  a  case  of  the  con- 
stituted authorities.  It  is  the  case  of  the  people  of  San 
Francisco.  And  unless  the  people  of  San  Francisco  do 
their  individual  duty  in  supporting  the  prosecution,  the 
officials  of  the  courts  and  of  the  law  must  fail  in  their 
efforts." — Walter  Macarthur  at  the  mass  meetinj^  called 
at  the  time  of  the  attempted  assassination  of  Heney. 


1  r  c)  7  o 

4  u  >1  *  J 


COPYRIGHT.    1915 

by 

FRANKLIN   HICHBORN 


San   Francisco 

Press  of   The  James  H.   Barry   Company 

1915 


FRANKLIN  HICHBORN'S 

BOOKS  ON 
CALIFORNIA  POLITICS 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909        -        -    $1.25 

Story  of  the  CaUfornia  Legislature  of  1911     -        -  1.50 

Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1913        -        -      1.50 

"The   System,"  as   Uncovered   by  the   San   Francisco 

Graft  Prosecution  -        -        -        -        -        .  1.50 


V3 


?6^ 


CONTENTS 


4 


Chapter  Page 

■^            I.  The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement...   11 

Ov  II.     The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors 22 

III.  The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 30 

IV.  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  of  1906.  .   49 
V.     Graft  Pros-ecution  Opens 73 

VI.  Ruef's  Fight  to  Take  the  District  Attor- 
ney's Office  87 

VII.     Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled 96 

VIII.  Ruef   Loses   Fight   for   District   Attor- 
ney's Office   107 

IX.     Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted 110 

X.     Fight  to  Evade  Trial 121 

XI.     Ruef  a   Fugitive 130 

XII.     The  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 139 

XIII.  Confessions  of  the  Bribe-taking  Super- 
visors     154 

XIV.  The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 168 

XV.     Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 186 

XVI.     Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion 208 

XVn.     Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 215 

XVIII.     The  Real  Fight  Begins 240 

XIX.     The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction 269' 

XX.     The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 279 

XXI.  The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907.  .  .300 

XXII.  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef. 320 

XXIII.  The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 335 

XXIV.  Jury   Fixing   L^ncovered 357 


Chapter  Page 

XXV.  The  Shootrng  of  Heney 370 

XXVI.  The  Calhoun  Trial 388 

XXVII.  The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909.  .  .405 

XXVIII.  Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 425 

XXIX.  Ruef's  Last  Refuge  Fails 440 

XXX.  Conclusion     455 

APPENDIX. 

Judge   Lawlor's    Ruling   in    Motion   to   Dismiss 

Graft  Cases   i 

How  the  Supervisors  \^^ere  Bribed vii 

Gallagher's  Order  Removing  Langdon  from 

Office  of  District  Attorney xii 

The  Ruef  "Immunity  Contract" xix 

"Immunity  Contract"  Given  Supervisors xxi 

District  Attorney  Langdon's  Plan  for  Reorgan- 
izing the  Municipal  Government xxii 

Roosevelt's    Letter   to    Spreckels    on    the    Graft 

Situation    xxv 

Governor  Johnson's  Statement  Regarding  Ruef's 

Imprisonment     xxviii 

Schmitz's  A;.tempt   to   Control    San   Francisco's 

Relief  Funds    xxxiii 

Receipts  and  Disbursements  of  the  Graft  Prose- 
cution      xxxiv 


PREFACE. 

A  tethered  bull  does  not  know  that  he  is  tied  until 
he  attempts  to  go  beyond  the  rope's  limits. 

A  community  does  not  feel  the  grip  of  the  "System" 
until  it  attempts  resistance.     Then  it  knows. 

San  Francisco  during  the  Ruef-Schmitz  regime  was 
no  more  under  the  heel  of  the  "System"  than  when 
other  "bosses"  dominated ;  no  more  so  than  to-day ;  no 
more  so  than  other  communities  have  been  and  are. 

The  political  "boss"  is  merely  the  visible  sign  of  the 
"System's"  existence.  However  powerful  he  may  ap- 
pear, he  is,  after  all,  but  agent  for  the  "System."  The 
"boss"  develops  power,  does  the  "System's"  work  until 
he  is  repudiated  by  the  people,  when  another  "boss," 
usually  in  the  name  of  "reform,"  takes  his  place. 

But  the  second  "boss"  serves  the  same  "System." 
Ruef  entered  San  Francisco  politics  as  a  "reformer." 
He  supplanted  other  "bosses."  But  Ruef  in  his  tu.rn 
served  the  "System"  they  had  served. 

San  Francisco,  when  Ruef  had  reached  his  point  of 
greatest  possible  power,  rose  against  him.  The  ".Sys- 
tem" was  not  immediately  concerned.  Ruef  had  lived 
his  day;  the  hour  for  another  "boss"  to  succeed  him  had 
come.  But  San  Francisco  proposed  to  get  at  tliose  back 
of  the  "boss" ;  to  get  at  the  "System."  And  then  San 
Francisco  found  the  "System"  more  powerful  than  her- 
self; more  powerful  than  the  State  of  California. 

And  San  Francisco  was  beaten  down,  humiliated, 
made  to  understand  that  within   her  borders  the   laws 


could  not  be  enforced  against  those  to  whom  the  "Sys- 
tem" granted  immunity  from  punishment. 

To  secure  evidence  against  bribe-givers,  the  State 
granted  immunity  to  bribe-takers  who  confessed  their 
crimes  and  joined  with  the  State  to  bring  larger  crim- 
inals to  justice.  And  the  "System's"  agents  cried  out- 
rage that  bribe-takers  should  go  free  of  punishment. 

But  the  "System"  granted  immunity  from  punish- 
ment to  those  who  had  bribed.  And  the  apologists  for 
the  "System"  will  tolerate  no  criticism  of  this  sort  of 
immunity. 

Other  communities  have  risen  against  the  "System's" 
agents,  the  "bosses,"  and  the  "bosses"  have  given  place 
to  other  agents.  But  few  commimities,  if  any,  have  at- 
tacked the  "System"  as  did  San  Francisco.  Had  they 
done  so,  unquestionably  they  would  have  found  them- 
selves as  ineffective  against  corruption  as  San  Francisco 
has  been  shown  to  be. 

The  "System"  is  confined  to  no  particular  State  or 
locality ;  it  permeates  our  entire  public  life.  Judge 
Lindsey  in  Colorado  calls  it  "The  Beast."  In  California 
we  call  it  "The  Southern  Pacific  Machine,"  for  in  Cali- 
fornia the  Southern  Pacific  Company  was  its  chief  bene- 
ficiary. Other  communities  call  it  the  "Organization." 
The  bull  does  not  discover  his  rope  until  he  strains  at 
it ;  the  community  knows  little  or  nothing  of  the  over- 
powering "System"  until  it  resists.  San  Francisco  re- 
sisted and  discovered. 

The  mere  bribing  of  a  board  of  supervisors  was  not 
extraordinary.  Our  newspapers  furnish  us  daily  with 
sorry  recital  of  bribe-taking  public  officials  discovered 
in  other  communities.  But  the  effective,  searching  re- 
sistance   to    bribe-giving    which    San    Francisco    offered 


was  extraordinary.  It  was  a  new  thing  in  American 
politics.  It  compelled  the  "System"  to  show  its  real 
stiWgth,  and  that,  too,  was  new  in  American  politics, 
and  extraordinary,  also. 

The  "System"  at  San  Francisco  had  taken  the  usual 
precautions  which  ordinarily  ensure  it  against  successful 
opposition,  or  even  question.  It  had,  through  its  agents, 
selected  the  candidates  for  public  office,  including  the 
District  Attorney.  With  the  District  Attorney  loyal  to 
the  "System"  the  "System"  was  secure  against  attack. 
And  even  were  the  District  Attorney  to  resist  the  "Sys- 
tem," still  was  the  "System"  secure,  for  the  "System" 
could  deny  the  District  Attorney,  through  the  public 
officials  it  controlled,  the  funds  necessary  for  successful 
opposition. 

But  here  again  extraordinary  circumstances  worked 
for  the  "System's"  confusion.  Not  only  had  the  "Sys- 
tem" been  mistaken  in  the  caliber  of  the  man  whom 
it  had  permitted  to  be  nominated  for  District  Attorney, 
but  patriotic  citizens  guaranteed  the  expenses  of  effect- 
ive attack  through  the  District  Attorney's  office. 

Nevertheless,  the  "System"  would  ordinarily  have 
been  able  to  laugh  at  the  attack,  and  render  it  abortive, 
by  compelling  the  citizens  who  were  backing  the  District 
Attorney  to  withdraw  their  support. 

Even  at  San  Francisco,  the  supporters  of  the  District 
Attorney  felt  the  force  of  such  attack.  Those  w^ho 
supported  the  Prosecution  found  themselves  harassed 
in  their  business  ventures,  and  snubbed  in  the  social 
circles  in  which  they  had  moved.  When  Heney, 
stricken  down  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  lay  at  the 
point  of  death,  a  minister  of  the  gospel  prayed  for  the 
wounded  Prosecutor's  recovery.     Immediately  from  the 


pews  came  silent  expression  of  disapproval.  That  pastor 
refused  to  be  intimidated,  refused  to  join  with  his  fash- 
ionable congregation  against  the  Prosecution.  He  Was 
eventually  compelled  to  resign  his  pastorate.  Rudolph 
Spreckels,  while  accounting  for  every  dollar  that  the 
Graft  Prosecution  had  expended,  asked  to  be  excused 
from  naming  those  who  had  subscribed  to  the  fund,  lest 
they  be  attacked.  Ordinarily,  those  citizens  whose  in- 
stincts had  led  them  to  guarantee  the  District  Attorney 
their  support,  would  have  been  forced  to  abandon  him. 

But  at  San  Francisco,  a  few  citizens,  in  spite  of 
ridicule,  abuse,  social  ostracism  and  business  opposition, 
stood  firm  for  civic  righteousness.  This  made  San  Fran- 
cisco's attack  upon  the  "System"  possible  and  stirred 
the  "System"  to  extraordinary   resistance. 

The  "System,"  seeing  itself  threatened,  went  to  the 
relief  of  the  "boss,"  its  agent,  whom  even  its  chief  bene- 
ficiaries despised.  The  "boss,"  through  his  puppet  in 
the  Mayor's  chair,  declared  the  ofifice  of  the  District 
Attorney  vacant,  and  appointed  himself  to  fill  the  va- 
cancy. The  boldness  of  the  move  startled  the  whole 
community.  But  the  act  merely  demonstrated  the  ex- 
tremes to  which  the  "System"  was  prepared  to  go.  It 
was  not  extraordinary  in  comparison  with  what  was  to 
follow.  Later  on,  witnesses  were  to  be  concealed,  intimi- 
dated, gotten  out  of  the  State ;  their  kidnaping  even 
being  attempted.  The  managing  editor  of  a  newspaper 
opposing  the  "System"  was  to  be  taken  on  the  street  in 
daylight,  hurried  across  the  country  to  a  sv[)ur1)an  town, 
forced  into  a  stateroom  of  an  outgoing  train,  and  sent 
on  his  way  to  a  distant  city.  The  home  of  the  pivotal 
witness  against  the  "System"-protected  defendants  was 
to  be  dynamited,  the  witness  and  other  inmates  of  the 


building  miraculously  escaping  with  their  lives.  A  public 
prosecutor  was,  while  conducting  one  of  the  **System"- 
attacking  trials,  to  be  shot  down  in  open  court.  A  pris- 
oner at  the  bar  was  to  arise  to  denounce  the  judge  on 
the  bench  as  a  partisan  and  a  scoundrel.  Thugs  were 
to  invade  court-rooms  v.hile  trials  were  going  on,  to 
intimidate  "System"-threatening  prosecutors  and  wit- 
nesses ;  men  were  to  be  trapped  as  they  ofifered  bribes 
to  trial  jurors;  agents  of  the  Prosecution  were  to  be 
bribed  to  ttu-n  over  to  the  defending  element  the  Prose- 
cution's papers  and  reports.  An  agent  of  the  Prosecu- 
tion in  the  employ  of  the  Defense,  working  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  Defense,  was  to  sit  at  the  Prosecutor's  side 
during  the  selection  of  a  trial  jury,  to  advise  the  Prose- 
cutor of  the  character  of  the  men  under  examination 
for  jurors,  and  with  such  advice  mislead  and  confuse. 

No ;  bribe-giving  at  San  Francisco  was  not  so  extra- 
ordinary as  the  events  which  grew  out  of  attempt  to 
punish   for  bribe-giving. 

And  now,  as  we  look  upon  San  Francisco  beaten, 
and  retarded  in  her  development  because  of  that  beat- 
ing, the  hopelessness  'of  her  opposition  to  the  "System" 
is  the  most  startling  thing  of  all.  We  see  now,  that 
with  a  District  Attorney  intent  r.pon  doing  his  duty,  with 
funds  ample  for  vigorous  prosecution  guaranteed,  with 
trial  judges  of  integrity  and  ability  on  the  bench,  none 
of  the  accused,  so  long  as  he  remained  loyal  to  the 
"System" — so  long  as  he  did  not  "snitch" — w^as  in  real 
danger  of  suffering  the  law-provided  punishment  for 
the  crimes  iincovered  against  him. 

Ruef  carefully  weighed  the  ability  of  the  Prosecution 
to  save  him,  against  the  power  of  the  "System"  to  pun- 
ish  or  to   save,   and   knowing  the   power   of   the   "Sys- 


tern"  as  few  other  men  knew  it,  Ruef  betrayed  the 
Prosecution  and  cast  his  lot  with  the  "System."  The 
outcome  would  have  justified  his  judgment  but  for  a 
series  of  unusual  events  which  none  could  have  foreseen. 
The  most  extraordinary  incident  of  the  whole  Graft 
Prosecution,  we  can  now,  with  the  "System"  uncovered 
before  us,  see,  was  that  Abe  Ruef  went  to  the  peniten- 
tiary. With  full  knowledge  of  the  power,  resources  and 
methods  of  the  "System,"  it  is  not  at  all  extraordinary 
that  guilty  men  under  its  protection  should  escape  pun- 
ishment. But  it  is  extraordinary — due  only  to  a  chain 
of  extraordinary  happenings — that  one  of  its  agents, 
who  continued  faithful,  who  didn't  "snitch,"  finds  him- 
self in  prison  and  unable  to  get  out. 

The  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution  uncovered  the 
"SN'stem"  as  it  has  been  uncovered  in  no  other  American 
city,  for  San  Francisco  made  the  hardest,  most  per- 
sistent, and  longest  continued  attack  that  a  municipality 
has  ever  made  upon  it.  California  has  profited  greatly 
because  of  the  uncovering,  for  while  uncovered,  the 
"System"  may  be  proceeded  against  intelligently,  not  in 
the  courts,  but  at  the  ballot-box.  California  has  been 
quick  to  profit  by  the  opportunity  which  the  uncovering 
of  the  "System"  has  ofifered. 

In  preparing  this  volume  for  the  press  it  is  my  pur- 
pose— so  far  as  lies  in  my  power  to  do  so — to  keep  the 
cover  off. 

FRANKLIN  HIGHBORN. 

Santa  Clara,  CaHf.,  Dec.  25,  1912. 


CHAPTER  I. 
The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement. 

Eugene  E.  Schmitz  ^  was  elected  Mayor  of  San  Fran- 
cisco in  November,  1901.  He  had  been  nominated  by 
the  Union-Labor  party.  This  party  was  organized  after 
labor  disturbances  which  had  divided  San  Francisco  into 
miHtant  factions,  with  organized  labor  on  the  one  side 
and  organized  capital  on  the  other.- 

The  convention  which  had  nominated  Schmitz  was 
made  up  in  the  main  of  delegates  who  had  affiliations 
with  labor  unions  and  were  in  close  sympathy  with  the 
labor-union  movement. 

But  this  did  not  mean  that  the  new  party  had  the 
unanimous  approval  of  the  labor  unions,  or  of  the  rank 
and  file  of  organized  labor.  A  considerable  faction,  v/ith 
P.  H.  McCarthy,  president  of  the  State  Building  Trades 
Council,  even  then  a  dominating  figure  in  San  Francisco 
labor  circles,  at  its  head,  advised  against  the  movement, 
and  opposed  the  new  party  candidates  not  only  in  1901, 


1  Schmitz,  previous  to  his  election,  was  employed  as  a  musi- 
cian in  a  San  Francisco  theater.  His  connection  with  organized 
labor  came  through  membership  in  the  Musicians'  ITnion.  He  had 
no  intention  of  aspiring  to  the  Mayor's  chair  until  Ruef  suggested 
it   to   him. 

2  The  San  Fran(^isco  labor  strike  of  1901  arose  out  of  the  refusal 
of  the  organized  teamsters  to  deliver  goods  to  a  non-union  express 
agency.  The  Employers'  Association  refused  to  treat  with  the 
men  collectively.     Other  organizations  went  out  in  sympathy. 

James  D.  Phelan,  who  was  then  Mayor,  was  the  Intermediary 
between  the  teamsters  and  their  employees.  He  advocated  recog- 
nition.    The  negotiations  failed.     During  the  progress  of  the  strike 


12       The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement 

but  in  1903  when  Schmitz  was  a  candidate  for  re-elec- 
tion. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  new  party  had  in  the  begin- 
ning the  support  of  the  Coast  Seamen's  Journal,  pub- 
lished at  San  Francisco,  and  one  of  the  most  influential 
labor  publications  on  the  Pacific  Coast.  It  had,  too,  the 
advocacy  of  several  earnest  Labor  leaders. 

Very  frankly,  such  leaders  questioned  the  ultimate 
consequences  of  the  movement,  expressing  fears  which 
time  was  to  justify.  But  to  them  the  situation  oflfered 
no  alternative.  Their  support  and  influence  went  to  the 
new  party  as  an  expedient  of  the  times,  not  as  the  be- 
ginning of  a  permanent  political  organization. 

But  the  movement,  once  started,  got  beyond  their 
control.  During  the  first  five  years  of  Union-Labor 
party  activities  in  San  Francisco  many  of  these  original 
supporters  were  forced,  first  into  silence  and  finally  into 

there  were  constant  disturbances.  A  steamship  company,  for  ex- 
ample, employed  prizefighters  in  the  guise  of  workingmen  to  seek 
positions  as  strikebreakers,  and  when  interfered  with  to  belabor 
the  pickets.  Assaults  were  made  upon  non-union  teamsters  car- 
rying supplies  to  and  from  railway  stations.  The  Chief  of  Police, 
in  order  to  preserve  peaceful  traffic,  placed  two  policemen  upon 
each  truck.  Labor  leaders  asked  not  only  that  the  police  be  with- 
drawn from  the  trucks,  but  from  the  waterfront.  This  action  the 
Mayor  refused  to  take,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  his  duty  to  pre- 
serve public  order,  and  that  it  was  in  the  interest  of  all  to  avert 
rather  than  suppress  trouble.  A  meeting  of  representatives  of  the 
several  factions  was  held  at  the  Mayor's  office,  September  23,  1901. 
The  story  was  circulated  that  the  Mayor  had  said  at  the  meeting 
that  if  the  workmen  did  not  want  to  be  clubbed  let  them  go  to 
work.  Both  sides  now  admit  the  statement  was  not  made.  Joseph 
S.  Tobin,  Henry  U.  Brandenstein,  Lawrence  .1.  Dwyer  and  Peter 
J.  Curtis,  who  were  present,  have  set  forth  in  affidavit  that  "Mayor 
Phelan  did  not  say  at  said  conference,  as  has  been  alleged,  refer- 
ring to  the  workingrnen's  strike,  that  'if  they  don't  want  to  be 
clubbed  let  them  go  to  work,'  nor  did  he  make  any  statement  of 
like  import."  At  the  time,  however,  feeling  was  running  so  high 
at  San  Francisco  that  the  most  extrav-agant  stories  were  believed. 
Opponents  of  the  administration — those  representing  capital  as  well 
as  those  advocating  recognition  of  the  unions — seized  upon  every 
opportunity  to  discredit.  Crafty  adventurers  of  the  type  of  Abe 
Ruef  lost  no  chance  to  work  distrust  and  confusion.  Out  of  the 
turmoil  came  the  Union  Labor  party. 


The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement       13 

open  repudiation  of  the  methods  of  the  Union-Labor 
party  administration. 

In  the  meantime,  members  of  the  McCarthy  faction, 
which  had  resisted  the  organization  of  the  party,  and 
had  opposed  it  at  the  1901  and  1903  elections,  became 
its  strong  partisans.  This  element  supported  the  party 
ticket  at  the  1905  election ;  and  in  1907,  and  again  in 
1909,  when  McCarthy  was  himself  the  Union-Labor 
party  candidate   for   Mayor. 

But  the  Union-Labor  party  ticket  which  McCarthy 
headed  did  not  have  the  united  support  of  labor  leaders 
who  had  organized  the  movement.  Indeed,  labor  leaders 
whom  the  McCarthy  faction  in  1901  called  "scabs"  for 
organizing  the  Union-Labor  party,  were,  by  the  same 
men  who  had  condemned  them  in  1901,  denounced  as 
"scabs"  during  the  1909  campaign  for  not  supporting 
the  Union-Labor  party  candidates. 

From  the  beginning,  the  Union-Labor  party  had  the 
support  of  elements  outside  the  labor-union  movement. 
Much  of  this  support  came  from  citizens  who,  regard- 
less of  their  attitude  on  trade-unionism,  were  dissatisfied 
with  the  old  parties.  The  situation  offered  exceptional 
opportunity  for  the  political  manipulator.  But  the  one 
man  with  the  political  vision  to  see  the  possibilities  of 
the  third-party  movement,  was  not  a  member  of  a  labor 
union.  He  was  a  lawyer  who  had  already  attained  some 
prominence  in  San  Francisco  politics — Abraham  Ruef.^ 


s  Rucf  graduated  from  the  University  of  California  and  from 
tlie  University  of  California  law  school  with  exceptional  honors. 
He   was   at    twenty-one   a   practicing-   attorney.     With    Franklin    K. 


r 


14      The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement 

Ruef  was  quick  to  see  the  potentialities  of  the  politi- 
cal Frankenstein  which  groping"  labor  leaders  had 
brought  into  being.  He  knew  that  they  could  not  con- 
trol their  creation ;  he  knew  that  he  could.  He  did  not 
overestimate  his  powers.  He  managed  the  new  party's 
1901  campaign.^  Under  his  direction,  success  was  won 
for  a  cause  that  had  been  deemed  hopeless.  The  genius 
of  Abraham  Ruef  made  Eugene  E.  Schmitz  Mayor  of 
San   Francisco.^ 


Lane,  tlie  present  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Dean  John  H.  Wig- 
more  of  the  Northwestern  University,  and  others,  he  organized  a 
club  for  civic  reform.  His  first  political  convention,  he  tells  us  in 
his  Confessions,  showed  liim  that  representative  government  was 
a  farce.  He. resolved  to  devote  himself  to  his  law  practice.  But 
almost  immediately  we  find  him  an  "errand  boy"  for  Martin  Kelly 
and  Phil  Crimmins,  powerful  "bosses"  in  their  day,  but  now  prac- 
tically forgotten.  Ruef  continued  with  Kelly  and  Crimmins  for 
ten  years.  He  drifted  with  the  machine,  securing  excellent  train- 
ing for  his  future  career.  His  opportunity  came  in  1901,  when,  in 
its  effort  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  the  bosses,  the  State  secured 
the  enactment  of  a  new  primary  law.  Under  this  law  Ruef  took 
his  first  step  to  secure  control  of  the  State  political  machine.  He 
seized  upon  the  new  law  as  a  vehicle  to  organize  a  "reform" 
movement.  His  organization  took  the  name  Republican  Primary 
League.  He  secured  a  large  following.  He  was  becoming  power- 
ful. He  tells  us  in  his  Confessions  that  during  this  period  he 
was  invited  to  dine  at  the  homes  of  men  of  political  and  social 
importance,  among  them  William  F.  Herrin.  chief  counsel  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  Company,  and  Patrick  Calhoun,  president  of  the 
United  Railroads.  But  as  yet,  Ruef  had  little  real  influence  in  the 
"organization."  Then  came  the  labor  unrest,  and  the  Union  Labor 
party  movement.  Ruef  managed  to  combine  the  Republican  Pri- 
mary Ijeague  with  the  LTnion  Labor  party  movement.  This  com- 
bination was  the  basis  of  his  campaign  for  the  election  of  Schmitz. 

4  Ruef  also  provided  much  of  the  funds  employed  in  the  first 
Schmitz  campaign.  In  a  statement  published  May  16,  1907,  Ruef 
said:  "When  Schmitz  first  ran  for  Mayor  I  made  his  campaign 
for  him,  and  put  up  $16,000.  My  friends  told  me  I  was  a  fool. 
I  guess  I  was." 

5  Out  of  the  52,168  votes  cast  for  Mayor,  at  the  1901  election, 
Schmitz  received  21,776.  His  opponents — Wells  (Republican)  and 
Tobin  (Democrat) — divided  30,392  between  them.  Wells  receiving 
17,718  and  Tobin  12,674.  Up  to  the  present  time  (1914)  the  Union- 
Labor  party  has  four  times  been  successful  in  San  Francisco 
mayoralty  elections.  But  only  once,  in  1905,  has  its  candidate  been 
elected  by  majority  vote.  Changes  in  the  San  Francisco  Charter, 
ratified  at  the  1911  session  of  the  State  Legislature,  place  the  elec- 
tion of  municipal  officials  on  a  non-partisan  basis,  and  prevent  elec- 
tion by  plurality  vote.  Plenceforth  all  officials  must  be  elected  by 
majority  vote. 


The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement       15 

In  practical  acknowledgment  of  Ruef's  services, 
Schmitz  issued  an  open  letter,  in  which  he  stated  him- 
self privileged  to  consider  Ruef  his  friendly  counsellor.® 
The  issuance  of  that  letter  made  Ruef  the  recognized 
political  representative  of  the  Union-Labor  party  ad- 
ministration, a  position  which  he  held  until  the  estrange- 
ment of  himself  and  Schmitz  under  the  strain  of  the 
graft  prosecution/ 


6  Schmitz's  letter  announcing  his  obligation  to  Ruef  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

"My  Dear  Ruef:  Now  that  the  election  is  over  and  I  am  to  be 
the  Mayor  of  our  native  city,  I  wish  to  express  to  you  and  through 
you  to  all  your  loyal  friends  and  the  faithful  Republicans  who  sup- 
ported my  cause,  my  profound  appreciation  of  the  generous,  whole- 
souled,  substantial  and  effective  support  accorded  me  in  the  exciting 
campaign  which  has  just  closed.  Viewed  from  your  prominent 
position  in  the  Republican  party,  I  know  the  seriousness  of  the  step 
which  you  took  when  you  voluntarily  and  unconditionally  offered 
me  your  valuable  aid,  and  I  cannot  in  words  pi-operly  give  utter- 
ance to  my  deep  feeling  in  this  regard.  I  can  only  say  that  your 
action  is  worthy  of  yourself,  and  that  no  higher  praise  can  be  ac- 
corded you. 

"I  have  now  for  some  fifteen  years  enjoyed  your  acquaintance 
and  friendship  and  your  services  as  my  attorney  in  many  capaci- 
ties, and  I  say  without  hesitation  or  flattery  that  I  have  yet  to  find 
a  more  honorable,  a  more  loyal,  a  more  able  attorney,  or  a  truer 
friend. 

"I  feel  that  I  owe  a  great  deal  of  my  success  in  this  campaign 
to  you  and  your  friends,  and  I  shall  not  permit  myself  at  any  time 
to  forget  it. 

"Though  you  liave  never  asked  or  even  suggested  it,  I  shall,  with 
the  utmost  confidence  and  with  a  sentiment  of  absolute  security, 
feel  myself  privileged  at  all  times  to  consider  you  as  my  friendly 
counsellor  and  to  call  upon  you  whenever  I  may  require  assistance 
In  tlie  solution  of  any  of  the  perplexing  and  complicated  questions 
whicli  must  necessarily  arise  in  the  conduct  of  so  vast  and  im- 
portant an  office. 

"I   trust   that   you  will   not  hesitate   to  say  that  I  may  do   so. 
Again  and  again  thanking  you  and  your  friends,  1  am, 
"Very  sincerely  yours, 

"E.   E.   SCHMITZ." 

7  Ruef  at  once  availed  himself  of  the  opportunities  which  his 
position  offered.  He  accepted  regular  "retainers"  from  public-serv- 
ice corporations.  He  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  he  was 
employed  by  the  United  Railroads  through  Tirey  L.  Ford,  just  after 
the  first  election  of  Schmitz,  at  $500  per  month,  and  that  he  gave 
receipts  to  Ford  for  this  money,  during  Schmitz's  first  term  of 
office,  but  received  the  money  always  in  Ford's  office  in  currency; 
but  that  .after  the  second  election  of  Schmitz,  he  (Ruef)  refused 
to  give  any  more  receipts  for  this  money,  although  he  continued 
to  receive  it  from  Ford  the  same  as  before  with  receipts,  and  that 


i6      The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement 

But  the  government  of  San  Francisco  did  not  pass 
entirely  under  control  of  the  Union-Labor  party  until 
four  years  after  Schmitz's  elevation  to  the  Mayoralty. 

During  the  era  of  Union-Labor  party  power  in  San 
Francisco,  the  Mayor  and  the  eighteen  members  of  the 
Board  of  Supervisors  were  elected  every  two  years.^ 
Schmitz,  under  Ruef's  management,  was  re-elected  in 
1903.     But  the  Union-Labor  party  failed  at  that  elec- 

after  the  third  election  his  salary  was  increased  to  $1,000  per  month, 
which  was  paid  in  the  same  way  by  Ford  without  any  receipts. 

Ruef  further  testified  that  he  was  employed  by  the  Pacific  States 
Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company,  immediately  after  Schmitz's 
first  election,  through  T.  V.  Halsey,  and  that  Halsey  paid  him 
$1,200  per  month   in  currency  without  any  receipt. 

E.  S.  Pillsbury,  general  counsel  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone 
and  Telegraph  Company,  testified  that  he  never  heard  of  Ruef's 
employment  until  after  the  indictments  were  returned  against  Hal- 
sey, and  that  he,  Pillsbury,  attended  to  all  of  the  legal  business  of 
the  company  during  the  entire  time  Ruef  was  under  employment. 
Pillsbury  received  only  $1,000  per  month  for  his  own  services,  and 
testified  that  he  would  have  objected  to  the  payment  to  Ruef  of  a 
larger  salary  than  lie  was  getting. 

Pillsbury  was  a  stockholder  to  the  amount  of  $500,000  in  his 
own  right,  and  was  a  member  of  the  executive  committee  of  the 
board  of  directors  of  the  company. 

At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Tirey  L..  Ford,  No.  817,  I.  W.  Hell- 
man,  one  of  the  most  prominent  of  California  bankers  and  at  one 
time  a  director  of  the  United  Railroads,  testified:  "Some  five  years 
ago  (the  Ford  trial  was  in  1907,  which  would  make  the  date  about 
1902)  Mr.  Holland,  who  was  then  the  president  of  the  United  Rail- 
ways, came  to  me  to  ask  my  advice  whether  Mr.  Ruef  should  be 
employed  as  an  attorney  for  the  United  Railways,  stating  that  by 
employing  him  peace  could  be  secured  with  the  labor  unions,  that 
he  had  great  influence  with  them,  and  there  would  be  general 
peace,  and  it  was  to  the  benefit  of  the  railways  company  to  have 
such  peace.  Mr.  Ruef  then  was  an  attorney  of  high  repute,  recog- 
nized as  a  good  lawyer,  and  I  said  if  that  could  be  accomplished 
it  would  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  railway  company  as  well  as  for 
the  public,  and  I  advised  yes.  Whether  he  has  been  employed  or 
not  I  do  not  know,  because  I  afterward  sold  my  interest  in  the 
company  and  I  never  have  inquired  whether  he  had  been  employed 
or  not." 

In  this  connection,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Ruef  in  his 
latest  confession,  the  publication  of  which  was  begun  in  the  San 
Francisco  Bulletin  in  May,  1912,  states  that  his  employment  by 
corporations  as  attorney  did  not  begin  until  after  the  second 
Schmitz  election — that  is  to  say,  in  1903.  Hellman's  testimony 
would  indicate  that  his  employment  by  the  United  Railroads  dates 
from  1902.     Compare  with  footnote  77,   page  74. 

8  Under  amendments  to  the  San  Francisco  Charter,  ratified  by 
the  Legislature  of  1911,  the  Mayor  and  Supervisors  are  now 
elected  to  four-year  terms. 


The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement       17 

tion,  as  it  had  in  1901,  to  elect  a  majority  of  the  Board 
of  Supervisors.  Many  of  the  commissions,  on  the  other 
hand,  through  appointments  by  the  mayor,  had,  by  1903, 
passed  completely  under  Union-Labor  party  control. 

Gradually,  the  opinion  grew  in  San  Francisco  that 
the  management  of  the  departments  was  unsatisfactory, 
if  not  corrupt.  This  opinion,  in  1905,  when  Schmitz 
was  for  a  third  time  the  Union-Labor  party  candidate 
for  Mayor,  found  expression  in  fusion  of  the  Republican 
and  Democratic  parties  to  bring  about  the  defeat  of  the 
Union-Labor  party  nominees. 

This  fusion  was  in  the  name  of  municipal  reform. 
The  organizers  of  the  movement  were  in  the  main  op- 
posed to  machine  political  methods.  When,  however, 
the  movement  gave  evidence  of  vitality  and  strength, 
the  political  agents  of  public  service  corporations  be- 
came identified  with  its  leadership.^  The  new  leaders 
were  soon  in  practical  control.  Public-service  corpora- 
tions were  larg-ely  instrumental  in  financing  the  move- 
ment. Testimony  was  brought  out  before  the  Grand 
Jury  which  conducted  the  graft  investigations,  that 
nearly  every  public-service  corporation  in  San  Francisco 


9  George  F.  Hatton,  Southern  Pacific  lobbyist  and  politician, 
and  political  manager  for  TJnited  States  Senator  George  C.  Perkins, 
was  one  of  the  principal  leaders  of  the  1905  "reform"  movement. 
Tie  was  at  one  time  retained  as  an  attorney  by  the  Empire  Con- 
struction Company,  affiliated  with  the  Home  Telephone  Company, 
which  was  seeking  a  franchise  to  establish  a  telephone  system  in 
San  Francisco  in  competition  with  the  Pacific  States  Telephone 
and  Telegraph  Company.  The  Home  Telephone  Company  contrib- 
uted to  the  "reform"  campaign  fund.  Through  the  "reform"  Board 
of  Supervisors,  who  were  to  be  elected,  and  whose  campaign  was 
thus  financed,  the  Home  Company  was  to  get  its  franchise.  But 
the  "reform"  candidates  were  defeated,  the  Schmitz-Ruef  Union- 
I^abor  party  candidates  were  elected.  The  Home  Telephone  Com- 
pany thereupon  proceeded  to  secure  its  franchise  by  employing 
Ruef. 


1 8       The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement 

contributed  to  the  fusion  fund,  the  average  of  the  con- 
tributions being  $2,500  for  each  corporation.^" 

-'  On  the  other  hand,  the  public-service  corporations 
contributed  Hberally  toward  the  election  of  the  Ruef- 
backed,  Union-Labor  party  candidates.  ^^  Ruef  was 
already  on  the  pay-roll  of  the  law  departments  of  many 
of  them.  Thus,  generally  speaking,  it  made  little  dif- 
ference to  the  corporations  whether  the  "reform"  fusion 
candidates  or  the  Ruef  Union-Labor  party  candidates 
were  elected.  jThe  corporations  had  captained  each 
side,  and  in  a  large  measure  had  financed  each  side.  ; 

The  inevitable  difificulties  of  a  campaign,  financed 
and  officered  by  public-service  corporations,  to  correct 
municipal  ills  for  which  the  corporations  were  in 
large  measure  responsible,  were  encountered  from  the 
beginning.  For  the  head  of  the  reform  or  fusion  ticket, 
men  who  had  been  prominent  in  the  organization  of  the 
anti-Ruef  crusade  v/ere  suggested,  only  to  be  rejected 
by    the    corporation    allies    who    had    after   the    reform 

10  William  Thomas,  of  the  law  firm  of  Thomas,  Gerstle  &  Prick, 
attorneys  for  the  Home  Telephone  Company,  testified  before  the 
Grand  Jury  that  his  company  had  contributed  $8,000  to  the  "re- 
form" campaign  fund.  The  testimony  indicated  that  this  money 
was  used  at  the  primaries.  Louis  Sloss,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
"reform"  movement,  testified  that  after  the  lirimaries,  Detweiler, 
who  was  at  the  head  of  the  Home  Telephone  Company  enterprise, 
sent  his  personal  check  for  $800  additional.  Fairfax  H.  Wheelan, 
one  of  the  leaders  of  the  "reform"  movement,  testified  before  the 
Grand  Jury  that  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Com- 
pany, in  the  name  of  T.  V.  Halsey,  subscribed  $2,000  to  the  fund; 
and  the  United  Railroads,  concealing  its  identity  under  the  name 
"Cash,"  $2,000  more. 

11  Dr.  Charles  Boxton  was  one  of  the  Union-Labor  party  Super- 
visors elected  in  1905.  At  the  second  trial  of  Louis  Glass,  vice- 
president  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company, 
for  bribery,  Boxton  testified  that  during  the  campaign,  T.  V.  Hal- 
sey, political  agent  for  the  company,  met  him  on  the  street  and 
gave  him  a  sealed  envelope,  saying:  "If  that  will  be  of  any  use 
to  you  use  it." 

Boxton  found  the  envelope  to  contain  $1,000  in  United  States 
currency. 


The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement       19 

group's  preliminary  successes  become  identified  with  the 
movement. 

Finally,  after  several  names  had  been  canvassed,  John 
S.  Partridge,  an  attorney  of  good  ability,  and  repute, 
but  scarcely  known  outside  the  immediate  circle  in 
which  he  moved,  was  agreed  upon  as  Mr.  Schmitz's 
opponent.  IJoth  the  Democrat  and  the  Republican  party 
nominated  Mr.  Partridge,  and  with  him  a  complete 
fusion  ticket,  including  supervisors.    / 

Partridge  had  a  clear  field  against  Schmitz,  but  his 
candidacy  failed  to  carry  the  confidence,  or  to  awake 
the  enthusiasm  which  brings  success  at  the  polls. 

The  Union-Labor  administration  was  openly  de- 
nounced as  corrupt.  Francis  J.  Heney,^"  fresh  from 
his  success  in  prosecuting  the  Oregon  land  fraud  cases, 
went  so  far  as  to  declare  in  a  speech  before  one  of  the 
largest  political  gatherings  ever  assembled  in  San  Fran- 
cisco that  he  knew  Ruef  to  be  corrupt, ^^  and,  given 
opportunity,  could  prove  it. 

12  Francis  J.  Heney  when  five  years  old  went  to  San  Francisco 
with  his  parents.  He  was  educated  at  the  public  schools  of  that 
city,  the  University  of  California,  and  Hastings  Law  School.  After 
being  admitted  to  practice  he  lived  for  a  time  in  Arizona,  where 
he  served  as  Attorney-General.  On  his  return  to  San  Francisco 
In  ISO^'.  he  confined  himself  to  civil  practice  until,  at  the  solicita- 
tion of  Ignited  States  Attorney-General  Knox,  he  undertook  the 
prosecution  of  the  Oregon  I^and  Fraud  cases.  He  was  at  the  close 
of  successful  prosecution  of  these  cases,  when  invited  by  Rudolph 
Spreckels,  Phclan  and  others,  to  participate  in  the  prosecution  of 
the   San   Francisco  graft  cases. 

13  Heney's  statement  was  prophetic.  The  published  account  of 
his  speech   (see  Chronicle,   November  6,   1905)  w.as  as  follows: 

"If  I  had  control  of  the  District  Attorney's  oflJice.  I  would  Indict 
Abe  Ruef  for  felony  and  send  him  to  the  penitentiary,  where  he 
belongs,  for  I  have  personal  knowledge  that  he  is  corrupt. 

"If  you  elect  these  people,  the  graft  of  this  city  will  become  so 
great  that  the  citizens  of  San  Francisco  will  ask  me  to  come  back 
and  prosecute  him.  When  the  time  comes  I  will  do  as  the  people 
request  as  a  matter  of  civic  dutj'." 

Heney's  charge  brought  caustic  reply  from  Ruef.  In  an  open 
letter  to  Heney,  published  November  7,   1905,  Ruef  said: 

"Francis  J.  Heney: — In  the  published  reports  of  your  speech  at 


20      The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement 

The  public  generally  believed  Heney's  charges  to  be 
justified.  But  of  approximately  98,000  registered  voters 
only  68,878  voted  for  Mayor,  and  of  these,  40,191  voted 
for  Schmitz.  Partridge  received  only  28,687  ^*  votes, 
being  defeated  by  a  majority  of  11,504. 

Mechanics  Pavilion  last  Saturday  night  you  are  represented  as 
saying:  'I  say  to  you,  moreover,  that  I  personally  know  that  Abra- 
ham Ruef  is  corrupt,  and  I  say  to  you  that  whenever  he  wants 
me  to  prove  it  in  court  I  will  do  so.' 

"I  am  not  a  candidate  for  office,  but  as  a  man  I  do  not  propose 
to  leave  your  false  statement  undenied. 

"In  the  past  I  have  paid  little  attention  to  anything  said  by 
hostile  papers  concerning  myself,  feeling  that  the  public  fully  un- 
derstood the  despicable  motives  underlying  the  utterances  of  their 
proprietors.  In  your  case  a  different  situation  presents  itself.  You 
have  recently  acquired  considerable  repute  as  a  prosecuting  attor- 
ney for  the  United  States  Government.  Your  statements,  if  un- 
challenged, may  be  given  some  credence  by  those  not  familiar  with 
the  true  condition  of  affairs. 

"In  making  the  statement  that  you  personally  know  that  I  am 
corrupt  you  lied.  You  cannot  personally  know  that  which  does 
not  exist. 

"In  making  the  statement  at  a  time  and  place  which  allowed 
no  opportunity  for  a  legal  showing  before  the  date  of  the  election 
which  you  seek  to  influence,  you  showed  the  same  courage  which 
put  a  bullet  into  the  body  of  Dr.  J.  C.  Handy  of  Tucson,  Ariz.,  in 
1891,  for  whose  killing  you  were  indicted  for  murder,  and  upon 
trial  were  acquitted  because  you  were  the  only  witness  to  the  deed. 

"You  say  whenever  I  want  Vou  to  prove  it  in  court  you  will 
do  so. 

"I  want  you  to  try  to  prove  it,  and  at  once.  I  demand  that 
you  begin  at  once.  I  know  you  cannot  prove  what  does  not  exist. 
Why  you  sliould  wait  upon  my  desire,  why  you  should  depend 
upon  my  wish  to  proceed  with  the  performance  of  what  must  be 
to  every  good  citizen  a  public  duty,  I  do  not  know. 

"But  as  you  declare  that  you  will  proceed  only  with  my  con- 
sent, I  give  you  here  and  now  full  consent  and  authority  to  pro- 
ceed, and  I  go  further  and  ask  that  you  do  so. 

"I  regret  that  your  recent  identification  with  the  Citizens'  Alli- 
ance and  with  the  corporations  anxious  to  encompass  the  defeat 
of  a  candidate  in  a  political  campaign  should  have  made  you  so 
far  forget  the  regard  for  truth,  justice  and  decency  which  should 
characterize  men  in  our  profession,  as  to  have  induced  you  to 
take  the  chance  of  ruining  for  life  the  reputation  and  standing  of 
one  who  is  not  rightfully  amenable  to  your  charge,  and  who  has 
not  otherwise  heretofore  given  you  the  slightest  private  or  personal 
provocation  for  your  savage  and  mendacious  attack. 

"A.   RUEF. 

"San  Francisco,  November  6th." 

14  To  hold  that  only  28,687  electors  of  San  Francisco  wished 
a  change  in  the  administration  of  San  Francisco  would  be  imjust. 
Many  v.-ho  were  opposed  to  Ruef's  domination  remained  away  from 
the  polls,  through  dissatisfnction  with  the  management  of  the  fusion 
movement.  Of  the  more  than  40,000  who  voted  for  the  Union  Labor 
ticket,    were    thousands    of    union    men    who    were    opposed    to    the 


The  Union  Labor  Party  Movement       21 

Not  only  was  Schmitz  re-elected  by  overwhelming 
majority,  but  the  entire  Rnef-selected  Union-Labor 
party  ticket  was  elected  with  him. 

Ruef,  as  Mayor  Schmitz's  recognized  political  ad- 
viser, and  political  agent  for  the  Union-Labor  party, 
found  himself  in  control  of  every  branch  and  depart- 
ment of  the  San  Francisco  municipal  government. 

Schmitz-Ruef  element.  But  Ruef  cleverly  injected  the  Citizens' 
Alliance  issue,  and  the  organized  labor  element  was,  because  of 
this,  made  to  vote  practically  solidly  for  the  Ruef-selected  candi- 
dates. The  fact  that  voting  machines  were  used  in  every  precinct 
In  San  Francisco  for  the  first  time  contributed  to  this.  Members 
of  labor  unions  did  not  understand  the  working  of  the  machines, 
and  were  afraid  to  attempt  to  vote  anything  but  the  straight  ticket. 
This  dissatisfied  organized  labor  element,  two  years  later,  con- 
tributed in  no  small  degree  to  the  election  of  Mayor  E.  R.  Taylor 
and  the  re-election  of  District  Attorney  William  H.  Langdon,  there- 
by making  possible  continuation  until  1910  of  the  graft  prosecution. 


CHAPTER  II. 

The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors. 

No  observer  of  San  Francisco  politics,  not  even 
Ruef  himself,  had  expected  the  entire  Union-Labor 
party  ticket  to  be  elected.  The  election  of  the  Super- 
visors was  the  greatest  surprise  of  all.  Ruef,  with  his 
political  intimates,  had  selected  the  Supervisorial  can- 
didates, but  more  with  a  view  to  hold  the  organized 
labor  vote  for  Schmitz  than  with  idea  of  the  fitness  of 
the  candidates  for  the  duties  involved  in  managing  the 
affairs  of  a  municipality  of  500,000  population. ^^  Not 
one  of  the  eighteen  elected  was  a  man  of  strong  char- 
acter.^*    Several  were  of  fair,  but  by  no  means  excep- 

15  At  Ruef  s  trial  for  offering  a  bribe  to  Supervisor  Furey, 
Supervisor  James  L.  Gallagher  testified  that  conferences  for  selecting 
the  Union  Labor  party  ticket,  from  Sheriff  down,  were  held  at 
Ruef's  office.     Gallagher  testified  of  one  of  these  conferences: 

"The  matter  of  the  nominees  for  Supervisors  was  mentioned, 
and  all  that  I  recollect  about  it  is  that  it  was  stated  that  there 
should  be  a  good  representation  of  prominent  Union-Labor  men  on 
the  ticket,  and  Mr.  Ruef  stated  that  he  had  that  in  mind,  and  that 
that  would  be  done,  and  it  was  also  stated  that  the  members  on 
the  Board  of  Supervisors  that  were  Union-Labor  adherents  should 
be  nominated."  See  The  People  vs.  Abraham  Ruef,  No.  1437 — 
Transcript  on  Appeal,   Part  3,  Vol.   3,   page   1278. 

16  The  eighteen  members  of  the  Ruef-Schmitz  Board  of  Super- 
visors were  James  L.  Gallagher,  attorney  at  law;  Cornelius  J.  Har- 
rigan,  grocer;  James  T.  Kelly,  piano  polisher:  Thomas  F.  Loner-' 
gan,  driver  of  a  bakery  delivery  wagon;  Max  Mamlock,  electrician; 
P.  M.  McGusliin,  saloonkeeper;  F.  P.  Nicholas,  carpenter;  Jennings 
J.  Phillips,  employed  in  newspaper  circulation  department;  L.  A. 
Rea,  painter;  W.  W.  Sanderson,  employed  in  grocery  store;  E.  I. 
Walsh,  shoemaker;  Andrew  M.  Wilson,  employing  drayman;  George 
Duffey,  contracting  plumber;  Charles  Boxton,  dentist;  M.  W.  Coffey, 
hackman;  Daniel  G.  Coleman,  clerk:  Sam  Davis,  orchestra  musician; 
John  J.   Furey    blacksmith   and  saloonkeeper. 

At  the  time  the  graft  prosecution  opened,  W-'ilson  had  resigned 
his  position  as  Supervisor  to  take  up  his  v>ork  as  State  Railroad 
Commissioner,  an  office  to  which  he  w^as  elected  in  1906;  and  Duffey 
to  be  president  of  the  Municipal  Commission  of  Public  Works,  to 
which  office  he  was  appointed  by  Mayor  Schmitz. 


The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  23 

tional  ability.  Of  this  type  were  Gallagher,  an  attorney 
of  some  prominence  who  acted  as  go-between  between 
Ruef  and  the  Supervisors ;  Wilson,  who  was  a  sort  of 
second  man  to  Gallagher,  and  Boxton,  a  dentist. 

But  for  the  most  part  they  were  men  who  had  led 
uneventful  lives  as  drivers  of  delivery  wagons,  bartend- 
ers and  clerks.  Without  an  exception,  they  saw  in  their 
unexpected  elevation  to  the  Board  of  Supervisors  op- 
portunity to  better  their  condition.  Some  of  them 
would  not,  perhaps,  have  sought  bribes ;  few  of  them 
knew  just  how  they  could  employ  their  office  to  their  best 
advantage ;  but  from  the  hour  of  their  election  the  idea 
of  personal  advancement  was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of 
the  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Schmitz-Ruef  Board 
of  Supervisors.^^  Their  ignorance  of  the  requirements 
of  their  office,  their  failure  to  appreciate  their  large 
responsibilities,  and  above  all  their  ill-defined  ambitions 
made  them  promise  of  easy  prey  for  the  agents  of  the 
public-service  corporations,  who  were  playing  for  spe- 
cial privileges  worth  millions. 

T~  Supervisor  E.  I.  Walsh  in  a  sworn  statement  made  to  Heney, 
March  8,  1907,  testified: 

"Q.  And  what  was  agreed  upon  there  (in  caucus)  as  to  pro- 
gramme?   A.     I  couldn't  say  what  was  agreed  upon  with  them. 

"Q.  Wasn't  it  arranged  that  every  man  should  he  treated  alike 
as  to  money?  A.  It  wasn't  openly  suggested  that  way;  It  might 
have  been  said  among  the  members  that  way. 

"Q.     That  was  the  understanding  you  had.     A.     Yes,   sir. 

"Q.  That  you  would  be  all  treated  equally  and  fairly?  A.  I 
presume  that  was  the  way  it  was  understood." 

Supervisor  Lonergan  had  been  promised  by  Supervisor  Wilson 
$8000  for  voting  to  give  the  United  Railroads  a  permit  to  operate 
its  lines  under  the  troUej^  system.  At  a  second  meeting  Wilson 
stated  the  amount  would  be  $1000  only.  Of  the  scene  on  this  occa- 
sion, Lonergan  testified  at  the  trial  in  the  case  of  the  People  vs. 
Ford.  No.  817: 

"Q.  What  did  he  (W^ilson)  say  on  that  occasion?  A.  There 
was  only  $4000  in  it  for  me. 

"Q.  What  did  you  say.  A.  I  asked  him  what  the  hell  kind  of 
work  that  was  and  what  did  he  mean  by  it.  And  he  shook  his  head 
and  said  that  if  I  didn't  like  it,  all  right;  something  to  that  effect." 


24  The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors 

None  realized  this  better  than  Ruef.  From  the  be- 
ginning, he  recognized  that  the  Hkehhood  of  individual 
members  of  the  board  yielding  to  temptation  to  petty 
gain  ^^  threatened  his  own  larger  purposes.  He  let  it 
be  known  that  he  would  himself  personally  prosecute 
any  one  of  them  whom  he  discovered  to  be  "grafting." 
Ruef  was  emphatic  in  his  position  that  the  Supervisors 
should  have  no  financial  dealings  with  those  seeking 
special-privilege  advantages.  He  even  defined  regular 
procedure  for  dealing  with  persons  and  corporations 
that  might  elect  to  catch  the  easiest  way  to  accomplish 
their  purposes  by  the  use  of  bribe  money.  To  this  end 
he  arranged : 

(1)  That  Supervisor  James  L.  Gallagher^®  should 
represent  him  on  the  board.     The  Supervisors  at  once 

18  Evidence  of  Ruef  s  distrust  of  his  Supervisors  was  brought 
out  at  many  points  in  the  graft  trials.  When  he  discovered  that 
individual  Supervisors  were,  witliout  his  knowledge,  taking  bribes 
from  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company,  he 
stated   to  Dr.  Joseph  S.   Poheim: 

"I  see  they  have  been  trying  to  take  my  Supervisors  away  from 
me,  but  I  have  fixed  them;  I  would  like  to  see  one  of  them  throw 
me  down."  (See  Transcript,  People  vs.  Ruef,  1437,  Part  3,  Vol.  9, 
p.  4018.)  In  the  midst  of  the  troubles  brought  upon  him  by  the 
graft  prosecution,  Ruef  complained  that  "These  fellows  (the  Super- 
visors) would  eat  the  paint  off  a  house,  and  in  order  to  hold  them 
together  I  had  to  descend  to  their  level  and  take  them  in  with  me." 

Ruef  was  also  jealous  of  Schmitz's  activity.  When  he  learned 
that  Schmitz  had  promised  franchises  independent  of  him,  he  di- 
rected Supervisor  Wilson  to  oppose  them.  "Butt  in  on  this  Parkside 
business,"  he  said  to  Wilson.  "Mr.  Schmitz  has  promised  the  Ocean 
Shore  and  the  Parkside;  he  is  destroying  my  political  influence; 
these  people  ouglit  to  be  made  to  come  and  see  me." 

19  Gallagher  was  by  far  the  ablest  member  of  the  Ruef-Schmitz 
Board  of  Supervisors.  He  was  by  profession  an  attorney  at  law. 
In  that  capacity  he  had  served  first  as  Assistant  City  Attorney,  and 
finally  as  City  Attorney.  For  a  time  he  was  law  partner  with  Hon. 
James  G.  Maguire.  whose  opposition,  as  member  of  Congress  from 
California,  to  tlie  Pacific  railroads  refunding  measures,  won  him  a 
national  reputation.  Maguire  was  candidate  for  Governor  on  the 
Democratic  ticket  in  1898,  but  was  defeated.  Gallagher  had  served 
as  Supervisor  previous  to  his  election  in  1905,  and  was  one  of  the 
most  experienced  members  of  the  Schmitz-Ruef  board. 

At  Ruef's-  trial  on  the  charge  of  offering  a  bribe  to  Supervisor 
Furey,  Gallagher  testified  that  soon  after  his  election  in  1905,  Ruef 


The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  25 

accepted  Gallagher,  and  dealt  with  him  as  Riief's  rec- 
og-nized  agent. 

(2)  Finally  Ruef  arranged  for  a  regular  weekly 
caucus  -"  to  be  held  each  Sunday  night,  on  the  eve  of 
the  regular  meeting  day  of  the  board,  Monday. 

The  public  was  not  admitted  to  these  caucuses. 
Those  who  were  admitted  were  Ruef,  Mayor  Schmitz, 
George  B.  Keane,^^  clerk  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors, 
who  also  acted  as  secretary  of  the  caucus,  and  the 
eighteen  Supervisors. 

At  these  meetings,  which  were  held  every  Sunday 
evening,   Ruef   was   the  dominating  figure.      Supervisor 

told  him  there  would  be  a  number  of  matters  coming  before  the 
Board  of  Supervisors  in  wliich  the  corporations  and  other  large 
concerns  would  be  interested;  that  there  would  be  a  number  of  large 
deals  coming  before  the  board  in  which  he  wanted  him  (Gallagher) 
to  represent  him  on  the  board.     Gallagher  accepted  the  agency. 

20  Gallagher  testified  before  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury  of  the  nature 
of  these  caucuses.     From  his  testimony  the  following  is  taken: 

"Q.  They  (the  Supervisors)  voted  in  the  caucus  and  you  knew 
how  the  vote  would  be.     A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  they  would  be  bound  by  the  caucus  vote.  A.  That 
was  understood  that  a  man  would  vote  at  the  caucus  in  the  way 
he  would  vote  at  the  meeting. 

"Q.  You  were  understood  to  represent  Mr.  Ruef  and  Mr.  Ruef's 
views.  A.  That  was  generally  understood  by  members  of  the 
board. 

"Q.  And  whatever  way  you  went  meant  programme.  A.  I 
believe  Mr.  Ruef  told  a  number  of  them  so.  and  that  circulated 
among  the  others;  it  was  generally  understood  by  them." 

21  Keane's  lasting  loyalty  to  Ruef  makes  him  one  of  the  most 
interesting  characters  of  the  graft  cases.  He  entered  Ruef's  employ 
in  189S  as  a  law  clerk.  He  remained  in  Ruef's  office  until  January, 
1002,  when  Mayor  Schmitz  took  office.  Keane  was  then  made  sec- 
retary to  the  Mayor.  He  served  in  that  capacity  until  January, 
1!>06,  when  Ruef  gained  control  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  Ruef 
then  made  him  clerk  of  the  board.  At  Ruef's  trial  for  offering  a 
bribe  to  Sup'nvisor  Furey,  Gallagher  testified  that  Ruef  told  him 
that  Keane  should  be  clerk.  Gallagher  notified  the  other  inembers 
of  Ruef's  decision,  and  that  closed  the  incident.  Keane  was.  how- 
ever, much  more  than  a  mere  clerk.  Supervisor  Wilson  testified 
at  the  Ruef  trial  for  offering  a  bribe  to  Furey,  that  he  (Wilson) 
owed  his  nomination  to  Keane.  Keane  was  elected  to  the  State 
Senate  where  his  loyalty  to  Ruef  in  foul  as  well  as  fair  weather 
made  him  a  conspicuous  and  somewhat  notorious  character.  At 
present  writing,  Keane  is  foremost  in  the  movement  to  bring  about 
Ruef's  release  from  State  prison. 


26  The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors 

Wilson,  testifying  at  the  graft  trials,  stated  that  Ruef 
took  the  position  of  "chief,  counsel  and  adviser  for  the 
board  in  matters  that  were  to  come  before  the  board." 

Keane,  as  secretary  of  the  caucus,  took  full  notes  ^^ 
of  the  proceedings  and  sent  written  notices  ^^  of  the 
meetings  to  each  of  those  who  were  admitted. 

The  first  of  these  caucuses  was  held  shortly  before 
the  Schmitz-Ruef  board  took  office.  The  organization  of 
the  board  was  provided  by  the  Supervisors  authorizing 
Ruef  and  Schmitz  to  make  up  the  committees.  Ruef 
undertook  the  task.  He  prepared  the  committee  lists, 
and  submitted  his  selections  to  Schmitz  and  Gallagher. 
Schmitz  and  Gallagher  suggested  unimportant  changes. 
The  committees  were  then  announced  to  the  Super- 
visors at  the  next  caucus.  There  were  objections  raised, 
but  these  objections,  with  one  exception,  were  denied  in 
all  important  particulars.  The  organization  of  the 
Schmitz-Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  was  thus  perfected. 

Ruef's  way  seemed  clear.  The  committee  organ- 
ization of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  was  his  own.  The 
Supervisors  were  to  hold  no  open  meeting  until  they 
had   met   with    him   in    secret    caucus    to   ascertain    his 

22  At  Ruef's  trial  on  the  charge  of  offering  a  bribe  to  Super- 
visor Furey,  Keane  testified  that  these  notes  had  been  destroyed 
in  the  great  fire  of  April  18-19-20,  1906.  Keane  testified  further 
that  Ruef  was  a  constant  attendant  at  the  caucuses;  that  Schmitz 
was  an  occasional  visitor;  that  Supervisor  Gallagher  presided. 

23  Notices  of  the  caucus  meetings  were  sent  to  Ruef  precisely 
as  though  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  At 
Ruef's  trial  for  offering  a  bribe  to  Supervisor  Furey,  the  following 
letter  of  notification  was  introduced  as  evidence: 

"San   Francisco,   June   21st,   1906. 

"Hon.  A.  Ruef,  San  Francisco — Dear  Sir:  I  respectfully  beg 
leave  to  notify  you  that  the  Board  of  Supervisors  will  meet  in 
caucus  on  Sunday  evening,  June  24th,  at  8  o'clock  p.  m.,  at  Hamil- 
ton Hall,  Steiner  street,  near  Geary.  Your  attendance  is  respect- 
fully requested. 

"Yours  truly,  GEORGE  B.  KEANE,  Clerk." 


The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  27 

wishes.  The  official  clerk  of  the  hoard,  who  was  also 
secretary  of  the  caucus,  was  his  tried  henchman.  Gal- 
lagher, the  ablest  of  the  Supervisors,  flattered  at  being 
made  his  representative,  and  further  bound  by  mer- 
cenary ties,  was  ready  to  do  his  slightest  bidding.  And 
never  had  entrenched  boss  more  fruitful  field  for  ex- 
ploitation. 

But  scarcely  had  the  new  administration  been  in- 
stalled, than  a  weak  point  developed  in  Ruef's  position. 
District_^Attoriiey- WiUiam  H,^  L^^  who  had  been 

elected  on  the  Ruef  ticket,  gave  evidence  that  he  pro- 
posed to  enforce  the  law,  regardless  of  the  efifect  upon 
the  administration  of  which  he  was  a  part,  or  upon 
Ruef's  plans  and  interests. 

The  first  intimation  the  public  had  of  Langdon's 
independent  attitude  came  when  gambling  games  in 
which  Ruef  was  popularly  supposed  to  be  interested 
were  raided  under  the  personal  direction  of  the  District 
Attorney.  Langdon  had  first  attempted  to  close  the 
places  through  the  police  department.  Failing,  he  had 
attended    to    the    matter    himself.-*      The    gamblers    ap- 


24  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  In  its  issue  of  March  8,  1906, 
said  of  the  District  Attorney's  raids  on   tlie  gamblers: 

"The  political  push  and  the  underworld  generally  are  astonished 
at  District  Attorney  Langdon's  unexpected  outbreak.  He  has 
descended  upon  them  like  a  thunderbolt  out  of  a  clear  sky.  For  the 
moment  even  wrath  is  less  in  evidence  than  surprise.  It  was  not 
expected.  It  is  not  what  was  paid  for.  It  is  like  being  murdered 
by  one's  dearest  friend.  There  is  a  complete  reversal  of  the  usual 
experience  of  mankind.  In  most  cities  the  lid  is  on  and  weighed 
down  before  election  but  lifted  and  thrown  away  as  soon  as  the 
votes  are  counted.  To  be  allowed  to  run  wide  open  before  election 
and  to  be  closed  down  and  nailed  up  as  soon  as  the  new  official  is 
fairly  seated  Is  outside  of  all  precedent.  And  all  that  after  the  most 
liberal  contributions.  There  is  a  feeling  in  criminal  circles  that 
somebody  is  guilty  of  obtahiing  money  under  false  pretenses.  The 
District  Attorney  is  the  one  official  for  whose  friendship  the  law- 
breakers have  the  most  earnest  longings,  and  behind  their  cloced 
doors    the   idle   gamblers   are    trying   to   figure   out   what   'lay'    this 


28  The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors 

pealed  to  Ruef,  but  Ruef  was  helpless.  Langdon  would 
not  be  turned  from  his  purpose.  The  gamblers  and 
capitalists  interested  in  gambling  establishments  charged 
Langdon  with  political  ingratitude. 

But  those  who  were  laboring  for  the  development, 
and  were  opposing  the  exploitation  of  San  Francisco, 
saw  in  Langdon 's  course  the  first  sign  that  Abraham 
Ruef  was  not  to  have  undisputed  sway  in  San  Fran- 
cisco.^^ With  Langdon  in  the  District  Attorney's  office 
it  was  still  possible  that  the  laws  could  be  enforced — 
even  against  Abraham  Ruef.  The  raiding  of  the  gam- 
bling dens  marked  the  beginning  of  the  division  in  San 


dreadful  Langdon  is  really  on,  and  by  what  trade  he  has  been  In- 
duced to  ignore  all  the  promises  expressed  or  implied,  which  those 
assumed  to  be  able  to  speak  for  him  dispersed  so  freely  when  votes 
were  in   demand. 

"As  for  the  public,  it  was  for  none  of  these  things.  Among  the 
decent  portion  of  society  the  'motives'  of  the  District  Attorney  do 
not  arouse  even  passing  curiosity.  What  does  interest  them  is 
the  present  vigor  of  his  work,  and  the  probability  of  his  keeping 
it  up." 

25  Ruef  had  consented  to  Langdon's  nomination  for  District  At- 
torney, because  he  considered  that  Langdon's  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  teachers  and  pupils  of  the  San  Francisco  public 
schools  would  help  the  ticket.  For  the  tliree  years  preceding  the 
campaign  Langdon  had  been  Superintendent  of  Schools  at  San 
Francisco.  Ruef  told  Langdon  after  the  election  that  he  had  no 
idea  that  any  one  other  than  Schmitz  could  be  elected  on  the 
Union-Labor  party  ticket  that  year.  When  during  the  campaign 
Langdon  began  to  develop  strength  in  the  contest  for  District  At- 
torney, Ruef  sent  him  a  check  for  $200  for  "campaign  expenses," 
saying  that  the  money  had  been  contributed  by  Tirey  L.  Ford  of 
the  United  Railroads.  Langdon  returned  the  check  to  Ruef  with 
the  statement  that  he  preferred  to  pay  his  own  campaign  ex- 
penses. During  the  campaign  at  every  meeting  he  addressed, 
Langdon  made  the  statement:  "The  laws  are  on  the  statute 
books;  all  may  know  them.  I  pledge  myself  to  the  enforcement 
of  these  laws."  To  be  sure,  few  if  any  paid  much  attention  to 
what  Langdon  meant,  but  that  was  no  fault  of  Langdon's.  Every- 
body was  to  learn  from  the  hour  that  he  assumed  the  duties  of 
his  office  that  he  meant  just  what  he  said.  Rudolph  Spreckels 
testified  at  the  Calhoun  trial  that  when  Langdon's  raids  on  the 
gambling  dens  were  made  public  he  felt  that  "we  had  a  District 
Attorney  who  was  desirous  of  doing  his  duty."  The  raids  were 
made  in  February,  1906.  Spreckels,  Heney,  Phelan,  Older  and 
others  were  already  considering  plans  for  the  exposure  and  check 
of  the  reign  of  Ruef. 


The  Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  29 

Francisco,  with  those  who  approached  the  Ruef  admin- 
istration with  bribe  money  on  the  one  side,  and  those 
who  resisted  with  the  check  of  law  enforcement  on 
the  other. 


CHAPTER  III. 
The   San    Francisco  Ruef  Ruled. 

The  decade  ending  1910  was  for  California  an  era 
of  extraordinary  enterprise  and  development.  A  third 
transcontinental  railroad,  the  Western  Pacific,  was  com- 
pleted ;  vast  land-holdings  as  large  as  40,000  acres  in  a 
body  were  cut  up  into  small  tracts  and  sold  to  settlers ; 
waters  brought  to  the  land  by  vast  irrigation  enter- 
prises increased  the  land's  productiveness  three  and  even 
ten  fold ;  petroleum  fields,  enormously  rich,  were  opened 
up  and  developed ;  the  utilization  of  the  falling  waters 
of  mountain  streams  to  generate  electric  power,  brought 
cheap  light  and  power  and  heat  to  farm  as  well  as  to 
city  factory.  The  Spanish  war  had  brought  thousands 
of  troops  to  the  coast.  Practically  all  of  them  passed 
through  San  Francisco.  This  particular  activity  had  its 
influence  on  local  conditions.  The  State's  population 
increased  from  1,485,053  in  1900  to  2,377,549  in  1910. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  San  Francisco  fire,  April  18, 
1906,  San  Francisco,  of  the  cities  of  the  State,  profited 
most  by  this  development.  San  Francisco  bank  clear- 
ances, for  example,  increased  from  $1,029,582,594.78  for 
the  year  ending  December  31,  1900,  to  $1,834,549,788.51 
for  the  year  ending  December  31,  1905,  a  gain  of  80 
per  cent. 

San  Francisco's  increase  in  population  during  those 
five  years,  can,  of  course,  only  be  estimated.     On  the 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  31 

basis  of  the  registration  for  the  1905  municipal  election, 
approximately  98,000,  San  Francisco  had,  at  the  time 
of  the  1906  disaster,  a  population  of  about  500,000,  an 
increase  from  the  population  of  342,782  shown  by  the 
1900  census  of  practically  50  per  cent,  in  five  years."^ 

The  rapid  increase  in  population,  the  sustained  pros- 
perity of  the  community,  and  its  prospective  develop- 
ment made  San  Francisco  one  of  the  most  promising 
fields  for  investment  in  the  country. 

The  public  service  corporations  were  quick  to  take 
advantage  of  the  San  Francisco  opportunity.  Those 
corporations  already  established  sought  to  strengthen 
their  position ;  new  corporations  strove  for  foothold  in 
the  promising  field.  Thus,  we  find  the  Home  Telephone 
Company,  financed  by  Ohio  and  Southern  California 
capitalists,  seeking  a  franchise  to  operate  a  telephone 
system  in  opposition  to  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and 
Telegraph  Company,  which  was  already  established. 
And  we  find  the  Pacific  States  Company  taking  active 
part  in  municipal  politics  to  prevent  the  Home  fran- 
chise or  any  other  opposition  telephone  franchise  being 
granted.  The  corporation  holding  the  light  and  power 
monopoly,  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company,  had 
by  the  time  of  the  third  Schmitz  inaugural,  practical 
control  of  the  San  Francisco  field.  But  it  was  face  to 
face  with  a  clamor  for  reduction  of  gas  rates.  The 
company  was  charging  one  dollar  a  thousand  for  gas. 
The  Union-Labor  party  platform   of   1905   pledged  the 

26  Patrick  Calhoun,  in  a  letter  to  the  press,  dated  March  21, 
1906 — less  than  a  month  before  the  great  fire — stated  that  the  time 
was  near  when  the  San  Francisco  street-car  system  would  have 
to  serve  a  million  people.  The  1910  census,  taken  four  years  after 
the  fire,  gave  San  Francisco  a  population  of  416,912. 


32  The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 

Board  of  Supervisors  to  a  seventy-five-cents-per-thou- 
sand  rate. 

Another  matter  of  tremendous  importance  to  the 
growing  municipality  was  that  of  the  supply  of  water. 
The  Spring  Valley  Water  Company  had  a  monopoly 
of  this  necessity,  but  demand  for  municipal  water  to 
be  brought  from  the  Sierras  was  strong.  A  committee 
of  experts  had  been  appointed  to  pass  upon  the  various 
sources  of  supply.  Ruef  appeared  before  them  as 
spokesman  for  the  Supervisors.  The  experts  resigned 
when  it  was  made  clear  to  them  that  instead  of  being 
permitted  to  make  an  adequate  study  of  all  available 
sources  of  supply  they  were  to  report  upon  the  Bay 
Cities  project  alone. -^  After  the  ousting  of  the  Schmitz- 
Ruef  administration  the  Bay  Cities  project  was  ignored 
and  bonds  authorized  to  bring  water  from  Hetch- 
Hetchy  valley.  The  Spring  Valley  Water  Company, 
however,  has  been  successful  in  blocking  this  project, 
and  in  1914,  San  Francisco  seems  almost  as  far  away 
from  realizing  her  ambition  for  a  supply  of  pure  water 
as  in  1905-6  when  Ruef  and  his  followers  were  at  the 
height  of  their  power. 

The  public-service  problem  which  was  attracting  the 
most  attention  at  the  time  of  the  great  fire,  was  that  of 
street-car  transportation.  The  principal  lines  had  passed 
into  the  hands  of  the  United  Railroads.-^  The  corporation 

27  Ruef  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  the  water  deal 
would  have  been  the  most  important  pulled  off  by  the  Board  of 
Supervisors.  He  testified  that  he  had  told  Gallagher  to  tell  the 
members  of  the  Board  there  would  be  more  money  in  it  than  had 
been  received  in  any  other  deal.  Ruef  gave  Gallagher  to  under- 
stand that  the  amount  to  be  divided  would  be  as  much  as  $1,000,000. 

28  The  United  Railroads  was  controlled  by  Eastern  capital.  Be- 
fore the  entrance  of  the  United  Railroads  into  the  San  Francisco 
field,  California  capital  had  dominated  in  purely  local  public  utilities. 


The  San  Francisco  Rucf  Ruled  33 

had,  at  tlie  time  of  Schmitz's  election  in  1905,  practically 
a  inonopoly  of  the  San  Francisco  street-car  service. 

The  company's  principal  lines  were  operated  by  the 
cable  system.  But  fully  five  years  before  the  fire,  all 
traction  officials  as  well  as  the  general  public,  recog- 
nized that  San  Francisco  had  outgrown  the  cable  road. 
It  was  admitted  that  electric  lines  must  be  substituted 
for  the  cable,  but  there  was  sharp  division  as  to  the 
character  of  the  electric  lines  which  should  be  installed. 
The  officials  of  the  United  Railroads  proposed  the  over- 
head trolley  method  of  propulsion :  the  public,  so  far  as 
it  could  find  expression,  declared  for  the  underground 
conduit  system.-^  In  taking  this  position,  the  public 
was  in  realit}^  backing  up  the  municipal  engineers,  who 
had  been  sent  to  Eastern  States  to  investigate  electric 
transportation  systems,  and  who  had  found  in  favor 
of  the  conduit  and  against  the  trolley.^" 


29  The  public's  opposition  to  tlie  overhead  trolley  system  was 
that  the  poles  and  wires  would  be  a  disfigurement  of  what  were 
regarded  as  the  best  streets;  that  the  wires  were  dangerous,  and 
would  interfere  with  tlie  v,ork  of  firemen  in  fighting  fires;  that  San 
Francisco  was  as  mu^'li  entitled  as  Washington  and  New  York  to 
the  best  system.  Rudolph  Spreckels  at  the  trial  of  Patrick  Cal- 
houn for  offering  a  bribe,  testified  as  to  his  own  opposition: 

"I  believed  that  the  overhead  trolley  was  unsightly;  that  it  in- 
creased the  risk  of  fire;  that  it  was  dangerous;  that  it  was  noisy 
and  unsightly.  I  believed  from  my  own  observation  of  the  opera- 
tion of  the  underground  conduit  system  in  other  cities  that  it  was 
preferable,  that  it  was  more  sightly,  just  as  rapid,  and  in  every 
way  more  in  keeping  witli  a  city  of  thei  size  and  importance  of  San 
Francisco.  Having  been  born  here,  and  having  large  property  in- 
terests I  felt  it  my  duty,  as  I  always  have,  and  liope  I  always  shall, 
to  protect  the  interests  of  this  community  and  to  protect  the  inter- 
ests of  its  citizens  and  its  property  owners.  That  was  my  purpose 
in  opposing  that  franchise  and  that  grant." 

30  As  early  as  1901,  C.  E.  flrunsky,  at  that  time  City  Engineer, 
was  directed  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  gatlier  data  on  the 
operation  of  electric  roads  under  the  conduit  system.  Grunsky's 
findings  were  to  the  effect  that  conduit-electric  roads  were  rapidly 
replacing  other   types   of  street   railroads. 

The  city  also   employed  J.    C.    H.    Stutt  as  consulting  engineer, 


34  The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 

The  San  Francisco  Merchants'  Association,  however, 
apparently  dissatisfied  with  the  reports  of  the  engineers 
employed  by  the  municipaUty,  employed  Mr.  William 
Barclay  Parsons  to  report  on  the  relative  merits  of  the 
trolley  and  the  conduit  systems. 

Mr.  Parsons  took  issue  with  the  city's  engineers,  and 
recommended  the  trolley  as  against  the  conduit. ^^  The 
directors  of  the  Merchants'  Association  thereupon  de- 
clared for  the  trolley  system. 

Criticism  of  this  action  of  the  directors  was  followed 
by  submission  of  the  question  to  a  referendum  vote  of 
the  Association  membership.  The  members  voted  in 
opposition  to  the  directors,  declaring  against  the  trolley 
and  for  the  conduit. ^^ 

and  sent  him  to  New  York  and  Washington  to  inspect  and  report 
upon  tlie  conduit  systems  in  operation  in  those  cities. 

He  reported  tliat  the  system  was  giving  satisfaction  in  both 
cities,  and  in  many  cases  was  being  substituted  for  the  trolley. 
Engineer  Stutt  in  comparing  the  two  systems  said: 

"As  between  the  overhead  system  and  tlie  conduit-electric  sys- 
tem, it  is  natural  for  private  corporations  to  prefer  the  overhead 
trolley  system  on  acount  of  the  first  cost  of  roadbed  construction, 
which  is  more  than  twice  as  great  for  the  conduit  system.  The 
conduit  system  leaves  the  street  open  with  the  view  unobstructed 
by  poles,  conductors,  feed,  guard  and  supporting  wires  and  without 
the  menace  to  the  public  and  especially  to  the  firemen,  always  in- 
herent in  the  bare  overhead   electric  conductor." 

This  report  was  widely  quoted  during  the  overhead-trolley- 
conduit  agitation  that  was  a  feature  of  a  greater  part  of  Mayor 
Schmitz's   administrations. 

31  Mr.  Parsons  found  for  the  overhead  trolley  on  the  following 
general  grounds: 

(1)  That  a   uniform  system  was  necessary. 

(2)  That  the  lines  must  be  extended  to  the  suburbs. 

(3)  That  operation  by  overhead  trolley  is  more  satisfactory 
than   by   the  conduit  system. 

(4)  That  the  greater  part  of  the  roads  could  be  operated  under 
trolley  only. 

32  Several  questions  were  presented.  The  following  is  the  vote 
as  given  in  the  Merchants'  Association  Review,  the  organization's 
official  publication,  for  February,  1906: 

"TOTAL  VOTE  OF  MEMBERS,   364. 
"1— Do  you  favor  Mr.   Parsons's  view  of  a  uniform  system  of  over- 
head trolley  lines  throughout  the  entire  city,  including  a  central 
line   of   ornamental    trolley   poles,    with    lights   furnished   by   the 
Railroad  company  between  the  tracks  on  Market  Street,  and   a 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  35 

But  the  most  determined  opposition  to  the  installa- 
tion of  the  trolley  system  came  from  improvement  clubs, 
whose  purpose  was  to  promote  the  best  development  of 
San   Francisco. 

Prominent  among  these  organizations  were  the  Im- 
provement and  Adornment  Association,^^  the  Sutter 
Street  Improvement  Club^*  and  the  Pacific  Avenue  Im- 

trolley  line  with  ornamental  poles  and  lights  furnished  by  the 
Railroad  upon  Sutter  Street? 

"Votes  received— Yes.  121;  No,  204. 
"2 — Do   you   favor  an   overhead   trolley  system   throughout  the   city 
except   on    Market    Street? 

"Votes  received — Yes,   67;  No,  212. 
"3 — Do  you  favor  an  underground  conduit  system  for  Market  Street 
and  for  the  streets  with  cable  lines  leading  into  Market  Street 
in  the  central  downtown  district  and  in   the  adjacent  residence 
district,  the  remainder  of  the  system  to  be  overhead  trolley? 
"Votes  received — Yes,   198;  No,   84. 
"4 — Irrespective  of  what  shall  be  done  on  any  other  streets,  which 
system  do  you  favor  for  Sutter  Street:  (a)   an  underground  con- 
duit, or  (b)  an  overhead  trolley  line  if  equipped  with  ornamental 
poles  and  lights  furnished  free  by  the  Railroad  company,  or  (c) 
an   improved   cable  system? 

"Underground 

Conduit         Trolley        Cable 

"First    Choice 217  93  5 

"Second  Choice 42  83  62 

"Third  Choice 7  14  94 

"5 — Do  you  favor  changing  the  cable  lines  on  Nob  Hill  to  electric 
lines  by  tunneling  the  hill  and  constructing  a  winding  driveway 
with  parks  on  California  Street,  as  proposed  in  Mr.  Parsons's 
report? 

"Votes  received — Yes,  158;  No,  140." 
This  vote  was  taken  after  an  extended  debate  at  a  banquet 
given  by  the  Association  in  which  Patrick  Calhoun,  president  of 
the  United  Railroads,  argued  for  the  trollej'  system,  and  Frank  .J. 
Sullivan,  president  of  the  Sutter  Street  Improvement  Club,  spoke 
for  the  conduit. 

33  The  Improvement  and  Adornment  Association  employed  D. 
H.  Burnham  to  draw  plans  for  the  development  of  San  Francisco. 
These  plans,  while  drawn  to  attain  a  maximum  of  utility,  were  in- 
tended to  secure  a  maximum  of  beauty  as  well.  Streets  were  to  be 
widened,  boulevards  built,  parks  established.  The  carrying  out  of 
these  plans  would  have  made  San  Francisco  one  of  the  most  beau- 
tiful cities  of  the  world.  Their  preparation  cost  the  association 
$17,500.     Mr.  Burnham  volunteered  his  own  services. 

34  The  objection  of  the  Sutter-Street  Improvement  Club  to  the 
overhead  trolley  was  set  forth  in  the  following  statement,  issued 
less  than  a  month  before  the  great  fire  of  inoO: 

"The  Sutter  Street  Improvement  Club  is  un.Tlterably  opposed  to 
the  construi'-tion  of  an  overhead  trolley  line  on  the  Sutter  Street 
system.  We  desire  that  the  public  should  have  no  misconception  of 
our  position.     We  propose  to  contest  to  the  end  any  attempt  to  get 


36 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 


provement  Club.  The  membership  of  these  organiza- 
tions consisted  of  some  of  the  largest  owners  of  San 
Francisco  properties.  The  leaders  were  comparatively 
young  men,  natives  of  San   Francisco,  whose  interests 

an  overhead  ti-olley  on  the  entire  Sutter  Street  system,  and  for 
that  purpose  we  pledge  ourselves,  and  promise  to  provide  the 
necessary  counsel  to  maintain  our  position  in  the  courts.  We  want 
the  public  with  us  in  this  fight,  as  the  fight  is  being  made  in  the 
Interests  of  the  whole  people. 

"Our  own  investigations  make  us  absolutely  certain  that  if  the 
public  understands  the  true  situation,  it  will  not  be  misled  by  the 
specious  arguments  of  the  United  Railroads.  The  conduit  electric 
system,  despite  what  the  United  Railroads  and  its  representatives 
may  say,  is  practicable,  safe,  efficient  and  superior  to  an  overhead 
trolley.  We  are  further  satisfied  that  the  company  is  seeking,  by 
an  offer  of  $200,000  which  they  offer  to  the  people,  to  save  itself  an 
expense  of  several  million  dollars,  which  the  conduit  electric  system 
would  cost,  if  it  should  be  required  to  reconstruct  all  its  lines  using 
the  conduits;  but  we  believe — and  we  are  certain  that  the  citizens 
of  San  Francisco  will  agree  with  us  in  this — that  since  the  United 
Railroads,  through  the  watering  of  its  stock,  has  already  made 
many  millions  of  dollars  out  of  its  properties,  and  is  now  taking, 
and  will  take  many  millions  of  profits  from  our  people,  that  it  can 
afford  to  contribute  to  San  Francisco  the  cost  of  the  most  attractive 
and  efficient  system  of  electric  railroads.  The  United  Railroads 
has  put  forward  many  arguments  which  have  been  and  are  easily 
met: 

"First;  It  contended,  as  the  public  will  remember,  that  the  con- 
duit electric  system  was  impracticable  on  account  of  the  accumu- 
lation of  rain  water  in  its  conduits.  This  claim  it  has  been  forced 
to  abandon. 

"Second:  It  proclaimed  loudlj'  that  the  added  cost  of  construc- 
tion of  an  electric  conduit  was  such  that  the  life  of  its  franchise 
would  not  justify  the  outlay.  Now.  they  have  abandoned  this  claim, 
and  assert  that  it  is  not  the  cost  of  construction,  but  that  there  are 
other  reasons. 

"Third:  They  have  declared  that  a  uniform  system  was  de- 
sirable. They  now  admit  that  a  completely  uniform  system  is 
impracticable,  owing  to  grades,  making  It  necessary  to  operate  some 
lines  by  cable.  Their  only  contention  now  is  that  the  overhead 
trolley  system  is  more  efficient  than  either  the  cable  or  conduit 
electric  system. 

"Mr.  C.  E.  Grunsky  is  our  authority  for  the  statement  that  in 
making  the  change  from  the  conduit  electric  to  the  trollej'.  in 
passing  from  city  to  suburbs,  there  are  no  objectionable  features, 
nor  danger.  Sir  Alex.  B.  "W.  Kennedy,  consulting  engineer  to  the 
London  County  Council,  in  recommending  the  adoption  of  the  conduit 
electric  system  for  London's  municipal  street  railways,  said: 
'There  is  no  difficulty  in  arranging  the  cars  so  that  they  can  be 
run  from  the  underground  (conduit)  to  the  overhead  and  vice  versa, 
either  with  no  stoppage  at  all  at  the  point  of  change,  or  with  a 
stopping  of  only  a  few  seconds.  There  is  no  engineering  difficulty 
whatever  in  using  a  mixed  tramway  system,  i.  e.,  partly  under- 
ground  (conduit)  and  partly  overhead.' 

"We  would  suggest  that  the  public  compare  the  present  over- 
head ti.olley  system,  operated  by  the  United  Railroads  these  many 
years  in  this  city  and  county,  with  the  service  rendered  by  the  Call- 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  37 

were  inseparably  wrapped  up  in  the  community,  and 
who  aimed  to  promote  the  best  possible  development  of 
the  city  of  their  birth  and  fortunes. 

Prominent  in  this  group  were  Rudolph  Spreckels  ^^ 

fornia  Cable  Railway.  There  is  no  overhead  trolley  system  in  San 
Francisco  to-day  which  surpasses  the  service  given  by  the  Cali- 
fornia Street  Company. 

"It  is  claimed  that  the  public  will  be  given  a  speedier  and  more 
efficient  service  if  the  overhead  trolley  is  permitted.  We  ask  the 
thousands  of  citizens  who  have  been  compelled  to  wait  for  overhead 
trolley  cars,  and  to  stand  up  in  those  overhead  vehicles,  whether 
or  not  the  overhead  trolley  has  thus  afforded  them  satisfactory 
service?  If  we  may  judge  the  future  by  the  experience  with  the 
overhead  trolley  of  the  past,  it  means  fewer  cars  (hence  less  expense 
to  the  United  Railroads),  overcrowding  and  discomfort  of  passen- 
gers. The  only  advantage  which  thus  far  has  come  from  the  sys- 
tem seems  to  be  to  the  company  itself.  It  employs  fewer  men  as 
a  result  of  that  system,  but  the  comfort  and  convenience  of  the 
public  have  not  been  substantially  bettered  by  it  as  against  the 
cable. 

"Before  asking  our  people  to  give  them  an  overhead  trolley  sys- 
tem throughout  the  whole  city,  the  United  Railroads  would  do  well 
to  show  on  some  one  of  their  overhead  trolley  lines  now  in  opera- 
tion a  frequent,  efficient  and  satisfactory  service  to  the  public.  We 
do  not  want  for  San  Francisco  an  extension  and  perpetuation  of 
the  unsighUy,  noisy,  dangerous,  uncomfortable  and  inefficient  sys- 
tem of  overhead  trolleys  as  operated  by  the  United  Railroads 
to-day. 

"Citizens  of  San  Francisco:  Be  not  deceived  by  the  selfish  and 
specious  arguments  put  forward  by  the  United  Railroads.  If  the 
public  will  stand  together,  we  W'ill  win  out  in  this  fight;  and.  if  it 
should  be  necessary  to  that  end,  the  supporters  of  our  organiza- 
tion will  put  before  our  citizens  a  plan  for  building  a  complete  con- 
duit electric  system  of  railroads  for  San  Francisco,  to  be  built,  in 
the  first  instance,  by  our  people,  but  with  a  provision  giving  to  the 
city  an  option  to  purchase  the  same  at  any  time  in  the  future  at 
actual  cost  and  interest,  so  that  municipal  ownership  of  the  said 
system   may  result  just  as   soon   as  the  city   is   ready  for   it. 

"All  that  we  ask  is  that  the  people  stand  fast,  and  save  their 
city  from  what  we  believe  would  be  a  calamity  from  which  it  would 
not   recover  in  the  next  twenty-five  years. 

"Respectfully. 

"Frank  J.  Sullivan,  Rudolph  Spreckels,  Julius  Rosenstirn.  Geo.  W. 
Merritt,  W.  D.  McCann.  Houghton  Sawyer.  Edward  P.  E.  Troy, 
Secretary." 

35  Rudolph  Spreckels  is  a  native  of  San  Francisco.  At  seven- 
teen he  was  employed  in  his  father's  (Claus  Spreckels)  sugar  re- 
finery at  Philadelphia.  The  Spreckels  refinery  was  at  the  time  in 
a  llfe-and-death  stiuggle  with  the  "Sugar  Trust."  Young  Spreckels 
was  given  his  first  lessons  in  the  methods  employed  by  the  "trust" 
elements  to  crush  competition.  His  Philadelphia  training  In  large 
degree  prepared  him  for  the  work  which  later  he  was  to  do  at 
San  Francisco.  At  twenty-two  he  became  president  of  the  Ha- 
waiian Commercial  and  Sugar  Company,  owners  of  one  of  the 
largest  sugar  plantations  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  The  venture 
had  been  a  losing  one.     Spreckels  put  It   on   a  paying  basis  within 


4G'rn^ 


38 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 


and  James  D.  Phelan,^"  rated  among  the  heaviest  prop- 
erty-owners of  San  Francisco.  These  men  were  ready 
to  join  with  the  United  Railroads  in  any  plan  which 
proposed  the  highest  development  of  the  street-car  serv- 
ice.^''    On  the  other  hand,  they  were  prepared  to  oppose 


a  year,  and  sold  it  at  large  profit.  Before  he  was  twenty-five  he 
had  become  a  millionaire  in  his  own  right.  He  has  been  engaged 
in  business  at  San  Francisco  for  many  years,  but  only  when  moved 
by  corrupt  conditions  to  take  up  the  fight  for  lionest  government 
did  he  become  active  in  politics.  He  financed  the  graft  prosecu- 
tion. He  has  since  taken  active  part  in  California  politics,  but 
has  steadfastly  refused  to  accept  public  office,  preferring  to  do 
his  work  as  a  private  citizen. 

36  James  D.  Phelan  is  a  native  of  San  Francisco.  He  is  one 
of  the  largest  owners  of  real  estate  in  San  Francisco  and  in  Cali- 
fornia. From  his  youth  he  has  taken  keen  interest  in  public  af- 
fairs. He  was  chairman  of  the  Charter  convention  of  1900  wliich 
framed  San  Francisco's  present  municipal  Charter.  He  was  Mayor 
of  San  Francisco  from  1896  to  1902.  After  the  San  Francisco  fire 
he  headed  the  Relief  Committee  and  was  largely  instrumental  in 
directing  the  work  of  rehabilitation.  President  Roosevelt  desig- 
nated him  by  proclamation  to  receive  funds  for  the  relief  work, 
and  to  use  the  United  States  Mint  as  depository.  In  1900  the 
Democi-atic  minority  in  tiie  State  Legislature  gave  him  compli- 
mentary vote  for  TTnited  States  Senator.  In  1914  he  was  elected 
to  the  United  States  Senate,  being  the  first  F^ederal  Senator  from 
California  to  be  elected  by  direct  vote  of  The  People.  Senator 
Phelan  has  for  many  years  been  close  friend  and  business  asso- 
ciate of  Rudolph  Spreckels.  He  was  one  of  the  heaviest  backers 
of   the   graft   prosecution. 

37  Rudolph   Spreckels   testified  at  the   trial   of  Patrick  Calhoun: 
"I  suggested  to  Mr.  Calhoun  one  thing,  that  if  it  was  a  question 

of  the  length  of  the  franchise,  of  the  length  of  life  of  the  present 
franchise,  standing  between  the  people  getting  the  system  which  I 
believed  it  was  entitled  to,  I  would  personally  be  glad  to  do  what- 
ever was  in  my  power  to  have  the  Charter  amended  so  that  they 
might  enjoy  a  longer  term  of  francliise,  to  work  out  the  difference 
in  cost;  but  that  I  believed  it  was  all  important  that  San  Francisco 
should  have  the  very  best  of  street-car  service  obtainable." 

United  Railroads  officials  objected  to  the  conduit  system  on  the 
ground  that  the  conduits  would  fill  with  water.  Spreckels  sug- 
gested that  property  owners  agree  to  drain  the  conduits  without 
expen.se  to  the  United  Railroads,  thus  demonstrating  their  prac- 
ticability, on  the  understanding  that  if  the  conduit  system  were 
found  to  be  practical  it  should  be  installed.  But  in  this  the  United 
Railroad  ofHcials  would  not  acquiesce.  (See  testimony  taken  at 
the  Calhoun  trial.)  The  following  is  taken  from  Charles  S. 
Wheeler's  testimony  given  at  the   Calhoun   trial: 

"Mr.  Heney:  Q.  Did  not  the  property  owners  on  Sutter  street 
and  the  property  owners  on  Pacific  avenue,  Mr.  Rudolph  Spreckels 
and  Mr.  Phelan  in  particular,  state  that  they  would  not  oppose  the 
United  Railroads  obtaining  a  franchise  or  permit  for  the  under- 
ground conduit  on  Sutter  street? 

"Mr.   Stanley  Moore:     That  is  objected  to,  if  your  Honor  please, 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  39 

any  attempt  to  exploit  the  service  to  the  detriment  of 
San   Francisco.^** 

as  calling-  for  the  conclusion  of  tlie  witness  and  the  mental  mind 
and   statement  and  hearsay  of  other  persons. 

"Mr.  Heney.  I  am  not  asking  for  their  mental  mind.  I  am 
asking'  about  direct  statements  at  these  meetings  of  committees  of 
tiie  Board  of  Supervisors. 

"The  Court:     I  will  overrule  the  objection. 

"Mr.   Stanley  Moore.     We  take  an  exception. 

"A.  I  have  [heard]  both  of  them  make  such  statements;  Mr. 
Phelan  in  substance  before  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  I  Ijave 
heard  Mr.  Spreckels  make  it  in  the  Supervisors'  chambers."  (See 
'I'ranscript   of   Testimony,    page   3197.) 

38  Patiick  Calhoun,  president  of  tlie  United  Railroads,  had  sev- 
eral conferences  with  Rudolph  Spreckels  on  the  questions  involved 
in  the  street-car  situation.  Of  these  conferences  Spreckels  testified 
at  the  Calhoun  trial: 

"Mr.  Callioun  stated  that  he  was  very  anxious  to  obtain  the 
overhead  trolley  privilege,  that  he  understood  that  I  was  actively 
opposing  it,  and  he  wanted  to  know  whether  I  was  open  to  convic- 
tion on  the  subject.  I  told  him  that  my  mind  was  entirely  free,  that  if 
he  could  prove  to  my  satisfaction  that  the  underground  conduit  was 
not  feasible  that  I  would  have  no  objection.  I  told  him  that  the 
arguments  that  he  had  presented,  namely,  that  the  Sutter  street 
system  could  not  be  converted  into  an  underground  conduit  system 
because  of  the  accumulation  of  water  at  some  number  of  points — 
I  think  16  were  mentioned — was  hardly  worth  while  urging  since 
Mr.  Holland,  a  former  president  of  the  United  Railroads,  had, 
together  with  Mr.  Chapman,  urged  that  reason,  and  I  related  to  Mr. 
Calhoun  tliat  I  had  questioned  Mr.  Chapman  and  Mr.  Holland  at 
length  in  regard  to  it  and  liad  satisfied  myself  that  their  reasons 
then  urged  were  not  legitimate  or  reasonable;  that  during  the 
conversation  with  Mr.  Holland  I  had  asked  him  to  state  all  of  the 
reasons  that  he  had  for  desiring  the  overhead  and  urging  against 
the  installation  of  the  underground  conduit;  that  Mr.  Holland  and 
Mr.  Chapman  had  both  a.=.sured  me  that  the  only  reason  was  the 
fact  that  it  was  an  engineering  Impossibility;  that  the  accumula- 
tion of  water  in  tlie  conduits  during  the  rainy  season  would  pre- 
\'ent  the  successful  operation  of  the  cars,  tliat  there  would  be 
repeated  interruptions  and  general  dissatisfaction  as  the  result.  I 
then  proposed  to  Mr.  Holland.  I  said:  'If  that  is  the  only  reason 
and  you  can  convince  me  that  that  is  true  I  have  no  objection  to 
withdrawing  my  opposition,  but  I  want  to  propose  this:  Suppose  I, 
or  the  property  owners  on  the  system  involved,  agree  to  pay  the 
expense  of  the  proper  drainage  of  those  conduits,  and  succeed  for  a 
period  of  twelve  months  in  treating  the  conduit  drained  at  those 
I>oints  you  indicate,  and  succeed  during  that  entire  term  to  keep 
them  free  from  water,  so  that  you  and  your  engineers  will  be 
obliged  to  admit  that  there  was  not  one  hour  during  the  twelve 
months  during  which  you  could  not  successfully  operate  an  under- 
ground system,  will  you  then  agree  to  Install  that  system?'  Mr. 
Holland  and  Mr.  Chapman  looked  at  one  another  and  finally  said 
'Well,  no,  we  cannot  do  that.'  Then  I  said:  'Gentlemen,  you  are 
wasting  my  time  and  your  own  because  your  argument  Is  not  the 
truth  and  is  not  the  only  reason  you  are  urging,  or  that  is  prompting 
you  to  object  to  putting  in  that  .system.' 

"Mr.  Holland  then  proceeded  and  asked  me  how  I  proposed  to 
Insure  that   result  and  I  told   him  T   was  not  an  engineer,   but  that 


40  The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 

A   conference   of   the   directors   of   the   Improvement 
and  Adornment  Association  with  officials  of  the  United 

common  sense  told  me  and  indicated  to  me  that  it  miglit  be  pos- 
sible to  carry  off  the  water  at  tliose  points  tlirough  an  ordinary 
stone  sewer-pipe  and  distribute  tlie  accumulated  waters  to  the 
various  streets  running  parallel  to  Sutter  street,  and  in  that  way 
carrying  it  off  and  keeping  the  conduits  free  from  water.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn said:  'Well,  there  are  other  reasons — the  question  of  a  uni- 
form system.'  He  urged  very  strongly  that  it  would  be  a  very  de- 
sirable thing  to  avoid  transferring,  or  it  would  be  an  exceedingly 
nice  thing  if  a,  man  could  go  to  his  home  w^ithout  transferring,  and 
have  a  uniform  system  of  cars  operating  over  all  of  the  system.  I 
told  Mr.  Calhoun  it  was  hardly  a  possible  thing,  that  no  man  would 
want  to  stand  at  any  street  corner  and  wait  for  fifteen  or  twenty 
cars  to  go  by  until  some  one  car  of  a  particular  brand  would  come 
along  which  would  take  him  to  the  particular  part  of  the  city  he 
cared  to  go  to.  Then  Mr.  Calhoun  wanted  to  know  if  the  matter 
couldn't  be  compromised,  whether  I  would  be  satisfied,  if  the  United 
Railroads  would  agree  to  construct  an  underground  conduit  system 
on  Sutter  street  from  Market  to  Powell.  He  wanted  to  know  also 
about  constructing  an  underground  conduit  on  Market  street,  and 
I  told  him  no.  that  this  did  not  enter  into  my  calculations,  that  I 
was  looking  to  the  welfare  of  the  city  of  San  JFrancisco,  that  it  did 
not  involve  merely  getting  what  I  wanted  in  front  of  the  particular 
properties  in  which  I  was  personally  interested,  and  I  told  him  that 
the  reasons  tha.t  had  been  urged  against  the  granting  of  an  over- 
head trolley — that  it  was  unsightly,  dangerous  and  noisy  and  not 
the  most  modern  system,  was  my  objection,  and  that  it  liekl  good 
for  the  entile  city  and  not  alone  on  the  streets  in  wiiich  I  was 
interested  as  a  property  owner.  Mr.  Calhoun  urged  further  the 
desirability  of  the  overhead  trolley,  that  it  had  given  satisfaction 
elsewhere,  and  I  suggested  that  he  might  first  make  the  street 
cars  then  operated  by  the  overhead  trolley  in  San  Francisco  a 
success  and  satisfactory  to  the  people;  that  I  felt  that  it  was  far 
from  a  success,  and  personally,  as  one  of  the  largest  propery-owners 
on  Ellis  street,  I  would  emphatically  prefer  the  ordinary  cable 
system  to  the  electric  lines  that  they  were  then  operating.  Mr. 
Calhoun  asked  for  another  appointment  and  it  was  had  I  think  on 
the  following  morning,  a  meeting  at  the  same  place,  at  the  Canadian 
Bank  of  Commerce;  I  think  our  meeting  on  that  occasion  w^as  held 
in  the  office  of  the  manager,   Mr.  Kains. 

"Q.  What  was  said  there?  A.  I  will  not  be  absolutely  certain 
as  to  whether  all  that  I  have  related  occurred  at  the  first  interview, 
or  whether  some  that  I  will  relate  as  having  occurred  now,  did 
not  occur  on  the  first  interview.  The  two  meetings  were  close  to- 
gether, and  the  subjects  that  I  will  relate  may  have  occurred,  some 
of  them  in  the  previous  meeting  and  some  in  the  latter.  Mr.  Cal- 
houn proceeded  to  ask  me  about  Pacific  avenue.  He  said:  'Would 
you  be  satisfied  if  we  agreed  to  operate  the  underground  conduit 
system  on  Sutter  to  Powell,  on  Market  to  Valencia,  running  it,  if 
we  changed  the  system  on  the  Pacific  avenue  line— to  agree  to  put 
in  the  conduit  there,  otherwise  maintaining  the  cable?'  And  he 
also  proposed  that  it  might  be  a  nice  thing  to  withdraw  the  entire 
street  railway  system  from  Pacific  avenue,  making  of  that  street  a 
boulevard,  and  placing  overhead  trolley  on  BroadM'ay  where  there 
was  no  car  line.  He  said,  'Of  course,  Mr.  Spreckels,  you  are  an 
owner  of  carriages  and  automobiles,  and  I  suppose  you  don't  use 
the  street-cars,  and  it  would  be  more  desirable  from  the  standpoint 
of   a  property   owner   to   have   your   residence   under  those   clrcum- 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  41 

Railroads  was  finally  arranged. ^^  The  meetings  were 
held  in  March,  1906,  less  than  a  month  before  the  great 
fire.  There  were,  before  the  attempted  adjustment  was 
abandoned,  several  sessions. 

The  citizens  urged  Patrick  Calhoun,  president  of  the 
United  Railroads,  to  give  up  his  trolley  design  for 
Market  and  Sutter  streets.  As  a  compromise,  he  sub- 
stantially agreed  to  build  the  underground  conduit  as 
far  as  Powell  on  Sutter,  and  as  far  as  Valencia  on 
Market,  picking  up  the  trolley  on  Valencia,  McAllister, 
Hayes  and  Haight  streets.  The  Adornment  Committee 
directors  wanted  the  conduit  system  on  Sutter  street 
extended  as  far  as  possible,  and  held  out  for  Van  Ness 

stances  on  a  boulevard  than  on  a  street  having  a  street-car  service 
with  tlie  attending  objections.'  I  told  Mr.  Calhoun  that  my  fight 
v/as  not  a  selfish  one,  that  I  did  have  carriages  and  automobiles, 
that  I  did  not  use  the  street-cars  and  had  no  need  for  them,  but  that 
I  had  in  mind  the  rights  of  other  people  living  on  the  street — that 
there  were  many  people  living  on  the  street  who  were  not  so  for- 
tunate as  I,  who  did  not  own  carriages  and  did  not  own  auto- 
mobiles and  had  undoubtedly  been  brought  to  buy  their  property 
on  Pacific  avenue  because  of  the  fact  that  it  had  a  street-car 
service  there.  Mr.  Calhoun  also  in  one  of  these  interviews  said 
that  he  would  tunnel  Powell  street  hill  commencing  at  Sutter  and 
make  that  the  most  important  transferring  point  in  San  Francisco. 
I  asked  Mr.  Calhoun  at  the  time  whether  it  was  because  I  was 
interested  in  property  at  the  corner  of  Sutter  and  Powell.  Mr. 
Calhoun  expressed  surprise  and  said  he  didn't  know  that  I  was  an 
owner  of  property  there.  I  think  that  in  substance  was  the  con- 
versation   as   I    remember   it." 

39  Patrick  Calhoun,  Tirey  L.  Foi-d  and  Thornwell  Mullally  were 
among  the  oflScials  representing  the  United  Railroads  at  the  con- 
ference. At  the  meeting,  first  mention  of  $200,000  in  connection 
with  the  proposed  change  in  the  street-car  system  was  made. 
Citizens  had  contended  that  the  objection  of  the  United  Railroads 
in  opposing  the  conduit  system  was  the  difference  in  the  initial 
cost  of  installation.  This  point  came  up,  and  President  Calhoun 
stated  that  he  would,  if  the  trolley  system  were  allowed,  give  the 
difference  between  the  cost  of  installing  the  two  systems,  for  any 
public  purpose.  This  difference,  Calhoun  stated,  would  be  about 
$200,000.  Tuining  to  .Tamos  T).  Phelan,  of  the  Adornment  Com- 
mittee, Calhoun  stated  tli.it  the  money  could  bo  used  in  extending 
the  so-called  Park  Panhandle,  part  of  the  Burnham  plans,  and  a 
matter  in  which  Phelan  was  greatly  interested.  Phelan  replied 
that  San  Francisco  would  not  accept  money  for  any  such  I'ltrpose. 
and  was  able  to  construct  the  Park  Panh.andle  if  the  people 
wanted  it.  (See  testimony  of  .Tames  D.  Phelan  at  the  trial  of  The 
T'eople  vs.    Patiick  Calhoun   for  offeiing  a    l>ribe,  page  ?750.) 


42  The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 

avenue.  Calhoun  would  not  consent  to  install  the  con- 
duit beyond  Powell. 

In  the  midst  of  this  deadlock,  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle  published  what  purported  to  be  reports  of  the 
several  conferences.  Up  to  that  time  there  had  been  no 
publication  of  the  meetings. 

Following  the  Chronicle  publication,  Calhoun,  in  a 
letter  to  members  of  the  Adornment  Association,  de- 
clared the  information  contained  in  the  Chronicle  article 
to  be  inaccurate,*"  and  offered  to  let  the  people  decide 
whether  they  wanted  a  conduit  system  on  Market  street 
to  Valencia,  and  on  Sutter  street  to  Powell,  or  a  uni- 
form all-trolley  system  throughout  the  city. 

Mr.  Calhoun's  suggestion  seemed  reasonable  until  he 
stated  in  an  interview  that  by  the  people  he  meant  the 
Board  of  Supervisors. 

He  was  asked  how  he  proposed  to  ascertain  the 
wishes  of  the  people. 

"I  should  suggest,"  he  is  reported  as  replying,  "that 
the  matter  be  referred  to  the  decision  of  the  Board  of 


40  The  Chronicle  in  Its  Issue  of  March  23,  in  referring  to  Mr. 
Calhoun's  letter  practically  charged  him  with  lack  of  good  faith. 
The  Chronicle  said: 

"The  alleged  'inaccuracy'  of  the  Chronicle's  interesting  report 
of  the  compromise  reached  by  the  United  Railroads  and  the  Society 
for  the  Adornment  of  the  City  proves  to  be  that  the  electric  con- 
duit in  Sutter  street  is  to  stop  at  Powell  street  instead  of  extending 
to  Polk  street,  as  proposed,  and  which  is  the  least  which  should 
have  been  accepted  if  any  compromise  whatever  was  to  be  made. 
We  shall  be  greatly  surprised  if  when  the  changes  are  finally  made 
there  is  not  a  great  deal  less  conduit  than  Mr.  Calhoun  now  seems 
to  agree  to.  We  gravely  doubt  whether  Mr.  Calhoun  expects  to 
construct  a  foot  of  conduit  in  this  city.  However,  he  does  agree 
to  do  so  under  certain  conditions  and  we  shall  see  what  we  shall 
see.  ...  It  does  look  as  though  some  settlement  of  the  matter 
would  be  reached,  as  the  United  Railroads  have  receded  from  their 
iron-clad  determination  not  to  consider  the  electric  conduit  at  all. 
When  that  is  accomplished  we  shall  speedily  see  the  last  of  the 
cables  south  of  California  street,  a  consummation  as  devoutly  wished 
by  the  people  as  was  the  introduction  of  the  cable  in  place  of  the 
liorse-car  a  onarter  of  a  century  ago." 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  43 

Supervisors.  The  Board  of  Supervisors  is  a  public 
body  selected  by  the  people,  and  represents  the  ideas 
and  wishes  of  the  people  of  the  city." 

The  reply  was  not  well  received.  The  Supervisors 
were  even  then  under  suspicion  of  corruption.  Less 
than  a  fortnight  before,  March  10,  the  Examiner  had 
called  the  board's  action  on  an  ordinance  which  was  sup- 
ported by  the  Home  Telephone  Company  "suspicious," 
and  had  stated  that  the  board  had  "made  the  mistake 
of  acting  as  a  bribed  Board  of  Supervisors  would  have 
acted."  *^ 


41  It  was  openly  charged  that  money  had  been  used  to  put  this 
franchise  through  the  preliminary  steps  necessary  for  its  granting. 
The  Examiner  in  its  issue  of  March  10,  some  five  weeks  before  the 
fire,    said: 

"The  Supervisors  owe  it  to  themselves  to  bring  back  the  tele- 
phone franchise  order  for  further  consideration.  Since  the  hasty 
vote  on  the  ordinance  last  Monday  ugly  rumors  have  been  the 
measure.  The  regard  of  the  Supervisors  for  the  good  name  of  the 
Board  demands  that  they  should  clear  the  record  of  the  SUS- 
PICIOT'S  CIRCT^MSTANCES  that  surround  the  vote  on  the  order. 

"The  present  Board  of  Supervisors  was  elected  on  a  platform 
that  pledged  its  members  to  a  municipal  ownership  programme. 
Among  the  purposes  specifically  announced  was  the  ACQUISITION 
OF  A  TELEPHONE  PLANT  to  be  owned  and  operated  bv  the  citv. 

"Yet  the  FIRST  ACT  OF  THE  BOARD  in  dealing  with  a  pub- 
lic utility  question  is  to  favor  an  ordinance  granting  a  franchise 
for  fifty  years  to  a  private  corporation  without  proper  compensa- 
tion to  the  city  and  WITHOUT  ANY  CONTRACT  that  would 
enable  the  city  to  buy  out  the  plant  at  a  just  appraisement  when 
the  time  comes  to  acquire  a  municipal  telephone  system. 

"The  bill  was  introduced  after  a  brief  hearing  and  passed  to 
print  on  the  26th  of  February.  On  the  5th  of  March  it  was 
passed  to  a  vote  in  tlie  Board  of  Super\Msors  without  discussion. 
One  of  the  members  of  tlie  Board  who  rose  to  explain  his  vote  was 
shut  off  with  such  indignity  that  he  left  the  Supervisors'  chamber. 
Nor.  indeed,  did  all  thf>  members  know  what  they  were  voting  on; 
for  one  of  the  Supoi-^'isors  later  in  the  session  asked  if  the  te'i^- 
phone  franchise  was  not  to  be  called  up,  and  was  surprised  to  be 
told   that  it  had  already   been   passed   upon. 

"This  sort  of  'gum-slioe'  legislation  will  not  do  for  San  Fran- 
cisco. It  inevitably  rouses  the  suspicions  of  crookedness  that  have 
been  hawked  about  the  streets  since  Monday  last. 

"A  telephone  franchise  is  not  a  matter  to  be  treated  lightly.  It 
Is  an  affair  of  more  moment  than  passing  a  street  or  even  of 
fixing  a  water  rate.  It  deserves  the  deepest  consideration,  for  the 
division  of  service  between  two  companies  creates  a  confusion  in 
business  that  should  be  taken  carefully  into  account.  It  is  only 
fhp  wretched  service  given  by  the  old  company  that  has  brought 
the   backing  of   a   certain   popular  support   to   the  advent   of   a  new 


44  The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 

Later  on,  the  Supervisors  themselves  confessed  to 
having  been  bribed  to  grant  the  telephone  franchise. 
The  public,  not  at  all  blind  to  what  was  going  on,  be- 
lieved, even  at  the  time  Mr.  Calhoun  made  his  sugges- 
tion, although  there  was  no  proof,  that  the  Supervisors 
had  been  bribed. 

San  Francisco  was  opposed  to  any  plan  that  would 
put  trolley  cars  on  the  city's  best  streets.  Submission 
of  the  issue  to  the  people  would  have  been  popular. 
Mr.  Calhoun's  proposal  that  it  be  left  to  the  Supervisors 
was  met  with  suspicion,  and  open  distrust  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn's motives. 

In  answer  to  the  criticism  which  Mr.  Calhoun's  sug- 
gestion had  aroused,  Mr.  Calhoun,  in  a  second  letter  to 
the  Adornment  Association,  withdrew  his  oflfer  to  sub- 
mit the  question  to  the  people,  and  announced  the  in- 
tention of  his  company  to  proceed  with  preparation  of 
a  plan  for  a  uniform  trolley  system  to  be  installed 
wherever  the  grades  would  permit.*^ 

company.  The  manner  in  which  the  obvious  evils  of  a  division  of 
service  can  be  lessened  requires  much  more  thought  than  has  yet 
been  given,  and  many  changes  in  the  ordinance  should  be  made 
unless  the  last  state  of  the  San  Francisco  telephone  service  is  to  be 
worse  than  the  first. 

"It  is  the  duty  of  the  Supervisors  to  recall  the  ordinance, 
answer  the  riimors  of  crooked  work  by  seeing  that  everything  is 
carried  on  above  board  and  in  the  open,  and  treat  the  franchise 
in  accordance  with  their  anti-election  pledges  to  the  people.  They 
cannot  afford  to  rest  under  appearance  of  evil  that  now  surrounds 
the  late  vote  on  the  order. 

"W^e  do  not  wish  to  believe  that  any  undue  inflvience  was  used, 
but  the  Supervisors  must  have  heard  the  ruinors  that  are  frequent 
in  the  streets,  and  they  must  realize  that  they  have  made  the 
mistake  of  acting  as  a  bribed  Board  of  Supervisors  would  have 
acted.  They  have  broken  their  pledge,  but  happily  It  is  not  too 
late  for  them  to  correct  the  gross  error." 

42  Mr.  Calhoun's  second  letter,  as  introduced  as  evidence  at  his 
trial  for  offering  a  bribe  (page  2775,  Transcript,  The  People  vs.  Cal- 
houn), was  as  follows: 

".San  Francisco,  March  23.— Messrs.  James  D.  Phelan,  R.  B. 
Hale,  Herbert  E.  Lav^',  Rufus  P.  Jennings  and  others — My  dear 
Sirs:     You  will  recall  that   the  only  condition  on  whlcli  I  consented 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  45 

This  second  letter  was  made  public  in  March.  1906, 
less  than  a  month  before  the  fire.  The  position  taken 
by    the    United    Railroads    was    generally    condemned.*^ 

to  even  consider  the  introduction  of  an  underground  conduit  on 
Market  street  from  tlie  ferries  to  Valencia,  and  on  Sutter  from 
Market  to  Powell,  was  to  secure  harmony  and  unaniinity  of  action 
in  the  development  of  San  Francisco.  You  will  further  recall  that 
I  distinctly  stated  that  'if  all  sides  to  this  controversy  are  not 
willing  to  faithfully  and  loyally  abide  by  what  the  people  of  San 
Francisco  may  determine  on  this  subject,  the  United  Railroads 
prefers  to  urge,  in  the  interest  of  the  development  of  San  Fran- 
cisco,   a   uniform    system   of   overhead    trolley   operation.' 

"The  development  of  the  last  few  days,  the  threatened  litiga- 
tion against  my  company,  and  the  action  of  the  Sutter-Street  Im- 
provement Club,  demonstrate  that  harmony  and  unanimity  of 
action,  so  much  to  be  desired,  cannot  be  obtained,  and  that  the 
United  Railroads  cannot  expect  all  parties  to  the  controversy  'to 
faithfully'  and  loyally  abide  by  what  the  people  of  San  Francisco 
may  determine  on  this  subject.'  On  the  contrary,  if  the  people 
should  elect  to  put  an  overhead  on  Sutter  street,  the  address  of 
the  Sutter-Street  Improvement  Club  distinctly  states  'we  pledge 
ourselves  and  promise  to  provide  the  necessary  counsel  to  maintain 
our  position   in   the  courts.' 

"In  view  of  these  facts,  I  desire  to  inform  you  that  the  United 
Railroads  will  proceed  to  prepare  a  plan  for  the  improvement  of 
the  transportation  of  San  Francisco.  The  essential  feature  of 
which  plan  will  be  a  inodern,  up-to-date,  efficient  and  uniform  sys- 
tem of  electric  propulsion,  through  the  introduction  of  the  overhead 
trolley  system  wherever  the  grades  of  the  streets  of  the  city  will 
permit.  When  this  plan  is  perfected  it  will  be  presented  to  the 
proper  authorities  of  the  city  for  their  consideration.  We  will  be 
very  glad  to  go  over  it  with  you.  Under  the  circumstances,  it  will 
be  useless  for  me  now  to  furnish  the  preliminary  plan  of  which  we 
spoke. 

"In  conclusion,  permit  me  to  express  my  appreciation  of  the 
motives  which  led  you  to  seek  a  conference  with  me,  and  the 
earnest  desire  of  every  gentleman  who  participated  in  that  confer- 
ence to  reach  a  basis  of  harmonious  action  in  order  that  the  de- 
velopment of  San  Francisco  might  not  be  obstructed   and  delayed. 

"Very  truly  yours,  PATRICK  CALHOUN.  President." 

43  The  Chronicle  commented  upon  Mr.  Calhoun's  new  position 
as    follows: 

"The  letter  written  by  Patrick  Calhoun  of  the  United  Railroads 
to  the  committee  of  citizens  who  have  sought  to  induce  him  to 
change  his  attitude  on  the  subject  of  overhead  trolleys  was  not  in 
good  taste.  It  exhibited  corporative  arrogance  in  its  most  exas- 
perating form.  Mr.  Calhoun  is  too  well  bred,  or  perhaps  too 
cautious  a  man  to  tell  the  public  to  be  damned,  but  every  line  of 
his  communication  breathes  the  spirit  of  the  insolent  utterance  of 
William  K.  Vanderbllt,  and  the  community  will  take  it  that 
way.     .     .     . 

"There  is  an  ill-concealed  menace  in  Mr.  Calhoun's  declaration 
that  the  United  Railroads  has  a  plan  in  preparation  which,  when 
perfected,  'will  be  presented  to  the  proper  authorities  of  tlie  city  for 
their  consideration.'  As  he  plainly  tells  us  that  this  plan  provides 
for  an  'efficient  and  uniform  system  of  electric  propulsion  through 
the  Introduction  of  tlie  overhead  trolley  system  wherever  the  grades 


46 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 


But  the  opposition  took  more  practical  form  than  mere 
denunciation.  A  group  of  capitalists,  headed  by  Claus 
Spreckels,  father  of  Rudolph  Spreckels,  Rudolph  Spreck- 
els  and  James  D.  Phelan,  announced  their  intention  to 
organize  a  street-railroad  company,  to  demonstrate  the 
practicability  of  operating  electric  cars  in  San  Francisco, 
under  the  conduit  system. 

The  plan  was  given  immediate  endorsement  both  by 
press  and  general  public.  The  project  was  explained  in 
detail  to  Mayor  Schmitz,  who  in  a  published  statement 
gave    the    enterprise    his    unqualified    approval.**      But 

of  the  city  will  permit,'  the  announcement  is  equivalent  to  a 
notification  that  'the  proper  authorities  of  the  city'  will  be  appealed 
to  for  permission  to  carry  out  such  a  scheme,  whether  the  people 
like  it  or  not.  His  defiant  attitude  suggests  that  he  feels  pretty 
sure  that  the  authorities  will  be  on  the  side  of  the  United  Rail- 
roads against  the  people,  but  he  may  be  mistaken  on  tliat  score. 
There  is  a  point  beyond  which  even  complaisant  authorities  would 
not  wish  to  press  the  matter  to  oblige  a  corporation  which  shows 
so  little  regard  for  the  desires  and  needs  of  a  community  from 
which  it  extracts  over  eight  million  dollars  annually."  (See  San 
Francisco  Chronicle,   March   25,   1906.) 

4-4  Mayor  Schmitz  in  his   statement,   said: 

"If  Claus  Spreckels  can  see  his  way  clear  to  carry  out  his  great 
purpose,  the  fact  stands  that  he  must  be  known  more  than  ever 
as  he  has  been  known  in  tlae  past,  as  the  greatest  public  benefactor 
of  the  West.  I  will  say,  if  he  can  see  his  way  clear,  reservedly, 
for  I  doubt  that  any  citizen  of  this  city  or  State  can  point  to  any 
understanding  that  he  has  announced  he  would  accomplish,  that 
he  has  failed  to  accomplish.  Not  only  is  his  determination,  but 
within  his  control  Is  the  money  to  carry  out  his  determination, 
and  I  have  yet  failed  to  find  the  man  that  can  say  that  any  object 
can  fail  of  accomplishment  when  determination  and  money  walk 
hand  in  hand. 

"If  Mr.  Spreckels  can  carry  out  his  announced  desire  to  network 
San  Francisco  with  railroads  operated  by  the  underground  con- 
duit system,  I  can  only  say  that  through  his  wonderful  ambitions 
of  purpose  San  Francisco  will  take  a  stride  forward  that  is  won- 
derful to  contemplate.  Such  action  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Spreckels 
would  place  San  Francisco  not  only  in  advance  of  any  city  in 
America,  but  would  place  it  in  advance  of  any  city  in  the  world 
in  the  battle  for  public  control  of  utilities  operated  for  the  public 
benefit.  The  offer  of  Mr.  Spreckels  is  not  only  one  that  must 
awaken  the  amazement,  but  the  approbation  of  every  public- 
spirited  citizen.  While  the  rest  of  the  great  cities  of  the  world  (as 
well  as  San  Francisco  before  Mr.  Spreckels  made  his  offer)  are 
puzzling  to  find  means  through  which  they  can  accomplish  the 
great  purpose  of  municipal  ownership,  Mr.  Spreckels  has  come 
forward  and  has  offered,  for  the  good  of  the  people,  to  demonstrate 
the  efficiency  of  a  system  that  will  mean  that  not  only  shall   the 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled  47 

when  the  incorporators  sought  further  interview  with 
Mayor  Schmitz,  they  found  themselves  unable  to  secure 
a  hearing. 

The  company,  under  the  name  of  the  Municipal 
Street  Railways  of  San  Francisco,  was  formed  with 
Claus  Spreckels,  James  D.  Phelan,  George  Whittell, 
Rudolph  Spreckels  and  Charles  S.  Wheeler  as  incorpora- 
tors. The  capital  stock  of  the  company  was  fixed  at 
$14,000,000.  Of  this.  $4,500,000  was  subscribed,  ten 
per  cent,  of  which,  $450,000,  was  paid  over  to  the 
treasurer.*^ 

beauty  of  San  Francisco  be  not  sacrificed,  but  that  the  public 
desire  for  rapid  transit  shall  be  fulfilled.  Backed  with  the  mil- 
lions he  controls,  his  offer  is  significant,  and  is  one  that  we  cannot 
contemplate  lightly. 

"As  Chief  Executive  of  the  city  I  can  only  express  the  hope 
that  something  will  happen  that  will  permit  Mr.  Spreckels  to  carry 
out  his  object.  At  one  stride  this  would  place  San  Francisco  at 
the  head  of  the  world  in  the  titanic  struggle  now  waging  between 
the  people  and  the  corporations  for  the  control  of  those  utilities 
in  which  the  people  are  interested  for  comfort  and  the  corporations 
for  profit.  Great  as  is  his  offer,  it  adds  not  only  enthusiasm,  but 
rekindles  hope  in  my  always  expressed  desire  that  my  administra- 
tion would  mark  the  first  victory  of  the  municipality  in  its  fight 
to  control  those  things  that  are  theirs. 

"The  people  are  on  the  eve  of  winning  for  themselves  those 
things  that  are  theirs.  If  the  offer  of  Mr.  Spreckels  can  be  carried 
out,  and  I  see  no  reason  why  it  cannot,  the  battle  is  ended.  Not 
only  will  San  Francisco  be  the  victor,  but  from  the  battle  she 
will  emerge,  her  beauty  unmarred  and  her  railways  standing  as 
exemplifications  of  the  fact  that  what  in  science  is  possible  is 
capable  of  actual  and  practical  accomplishment."  (See  San  Fran- 
cisco  Call,    March   24.    1906.) 

But  in  spite  of  this  approval,  aPfter  the  organization  of  the  new 
company  was  assured,  Rudolph  Spreckels  found  the  Mayor's  door 
closed  to  him  when  he  attempted  to  secure  an  interview.  (See 
Rudolph   Spreckels'   testimony  at  the  Calhoun  trial.) 

45  The  purposes  of  the  incorporators  were  brought  out  at  the 
graft  trials.  At  the  Calhoun  trial,  when  James  D.  Phelan,  former 
Mayor  of  San  Francisco,  and  one  of  the  incorporators,  was  under 
cross-examination,  Calhoun's  attorney  referred  to  other  public 
utility  ventures  in  which  Claus  Spreckels  had  been  interested,  and 
asked: 

"Q.  You  knew  of  the  matter  of  the  rival  gas  or  competing  gas 
lines,  and  the  rival  and  competing  electric  lines,  and  the  rival  and 
competing  steam  railroads  down  the  valley  at  the  time  you  went 
into  the  corporation  to  put  in  the  People's  Street  Railroad?  A.  I 
knew,  and  I  know  the  effect  they  had;  they  reduced  rates  in  both 
oases;  and  If  our  system  accomplished  the  purpose  of  bringing  Mr. 
Calhoun's  railroad  to  a  realization  of  the  public  desire  to  have  a 
conduit    system,    our    purpose    would    have    been    accomplished.      It 


48 


The  San  Francisco  Ruef  Ruled 


With  this  $450,000  an  experimental  Hne,  under  the 
conduit  system,  was  to  be  built  on  Bush  street.*® 

The  articles  of  incorporation  provided  that  the  fran- 
chises acquired  under  them  should  contain  provisions 
for  the  acc|uisition  by  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco  of  the  roads  thus  built.*" 

The  new  company  filed  its  articles  of  incorporation 
with  the  Secretary  of  State  at  Sacramento  on  April  17, 
1906. 

In  the  early  morning  of  the  day  following,  April  18, 
came  the  San  Francisco  earthquake  and  fire.  For  the 
moment  the  public  forgot  all  differences  in  the  common 
disaster.  Cut  the  lines  of  division  between-  exploiter 
and  builder  could  not  be  wiped  out,  not  even  by  the 
destruction  of  the  city.  The  contest,  which  had,  without 
any  one  realizing  its  full  significance,  been  fast  coming 
to  a  head  before  the  fire,  was  to  take  definite  shape  after 
the  disaster. 

was  the  last  resort.  I  looked  upon  it,  as  an  incorporator,  as  the 
last  resort.  We  had  negotiated  in  a  friendly  way  for  months,  and 
I  saw  the  fruit  of  all  the  conferences  fade  away  and  believed  that 
arrangements  had  heen  made  by  Mr.  Calhoun  with  the  city  admin- 
istration, and  the  only  resort  left  to  us  to  do  was  to  build  a  road 
of  our  own  to  demonstrate  that  it  was  practicable  and  possibly 
profitable — a  conduit  system." 

40  As  early  as  April  3,  1906,  a  petition  was  circulated  for  sigria- 
tures  among  residents  and  property  owners  on  Bush  street,  asking 
the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  grant  a  franchise  to  operate  street-cars 
on  Bush  street  under  the  electric-conduit  system. 

47  Tlie  San  Francisco  Examiner  of  March  31,  1906,  set  forth 
that  "an  important  feature  (of  the  plans  for  competing  street 
railways)  was  that  the  city  should  have  the  right  at  the  end  of 
ten  years  or  any  shorter  period  that  might  be  preferred,  to  take 
over  the  system  and  operate  the  same  itself,  the  terms  of  the 
transfer  to  be  such  as  would  be  just  both  to  the  builders  and  to 
the  municipality." 

Among  the  purposes  for  which  the  Municipal  Street  Railways 
of  San  Francisco  was  formed,  was  set  forth  in  the  articles  of  in- 
corporation the  following:  "To  accept  and  acquire  franchises  for 
street  railroads,  elevated  railroads  and  subways,  containing  provi- 
sions for  the  acquisition  thereof  by  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco,  or  such  other  conditions  as  may  be  lawfully  inserted 
therein." 


CHAPTER  IV. 
San  Francisco  After  the  Fire. 

The  great  San  Francisco  fire  was  brought  under 
control  Friday,  April  20,  1906.  The  Sunday  following, 
the  first  step  was  taken  toward  getting  the  scattered 
Board  of  Supervisors  together.  George  B.  Keane,  clerk 
of  the  board,  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  the 
meeting  place  was  in  a  room  back  of  Supervisor  Mc- 
Gushin's  saloon.*^  The  ashes  of  the  burned  city  were 
still  hot ;  the  average  citizen  was  thinking  only  of  the 
next  meal  and  shelter  for  the  night  for  himself  and 
dependents.  But  the  public-service  corporations  were 
even  then  active  in  furthering  plans  which  had  been 
temporarily  dropped  while  San  Francisco  was  burning. 

At  the  McGushin-saloon  meeting,  Keane  found  with 
the  Supervisors  Mr.  Frick  of  the  law  firm  of  Thomas, 
Gerstle  &  Frick.  Mr.  Frick  was  on  hand  to  represent 
the  petitioners  for  the  Home  Telephone  franchise, 
which,  at  the  time  of  the  disaster  was  pending  before 
the  board. 

For  months  previous  to  the  fire,  no  subject  affecting 
a  San  Francisco  public-service  corporation  had,  with 
the  single  exception  of  the  United  Railroads'  scheme 
for  substituting  electric  for  cable  service,  created  more 
discussion    than    the    Home    Telephone    application    for 

48  See  Keane's  testimony  in  The  People  vs.  Ruef.  No.  1437.  Part 
3,  vol.  1,  page  455. 


50  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

franchise.  There  had  been  allegations  that  the  progress 
which,  previous  to  the  fire,  the  Home  Company  had 
made  toward  securing  its  franchise,  had  been  paid  for,*^ 
but  for  weeks  after  the  fire  few  citizens  had  time  to 
think  about  it.  The  people  forgot  for  the  time  the 
issues  which  had  before  the  disaster  divided  the  city. 
But  the  agents  for  the  public-service  corporations  did 
not  forget.  We  find  a  representative  of  the  Home 
Telephone  Company  picking  his  way  over  the  hot  ashes 
of  the  burned  city  to  McGushin's  saloon  to  meet  the 
Supervisors  that  the  interests  of  his  company  might  be 
preserved.  The  developments  of  the  graft  prosecution 
indicate  that  even  as  the  Home  Company  was  seeking 
out  the  Supervisors,  the  United  Railroads  was  getting 
into  touch  with  Ruef.^° 

But   if   the   corporations   were   quick   to   avail   them- 
selves of  the  situation  to  secure  privileges  denied  them 

49  See  footnote  41,  page  43. 

50  Supervisor  Gallagher  testified  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs. 
Ruef,  No.  1437,  that  about  a  week  before  the  fire  "Mr.  Ruef  stated 
that  the  United  Railroads  wanted  to  secure  a  permit  to  use  elec- 
tricity upon  their  lines  and  asked  me  to  speak  to  the  members  of 
tlie  Board  of  Supervisors  about  it  and  let  him  know  whether  it 
could  go  through  the  Board,  and  about  what  amount  of  money  it 
would  take.  I  told  him  that  I  would  do  so."  (See  Transcript  on 
Appeal,  page  850.)  Similar  testimony,  to  show  that  the  United 
Railroads  was  dealing  with  Ruef  during  the  month  preceding  the 
fire,  was  brought  out  at  trials  of  other  defendants  in  the  "graft" 
cases.  This  would  make  the  date  of  Ruef's  activity  on  behalf  of 
the  United  Railroads  about  the  time  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  announce- 
ment that  he  would  proceed  to  present  plans  for  the  trolley  system, 
to  the  "proper  representatives"  of  the  People  (the  Supervisors), 
who  were  even  then,  through  Ruef,  receiving  bribe  money  from 
public-service  corporations. 

Gallagher  testified  further  (see  same  transcript,  page  853)  that 
within  a  week  after  the  fire  Ruef  stated  to  him  that  the  IJnlted 
Railroads  still  wanted  its  electric  permit,  and  directed  that  Galla- 
gher find  out  whether  such  a  permit  could  be  put  through  the 
Board.  Gallagher  testified  that  he  saw  members,  put  the  question 
to  them,  and  reported  back  to  Ruef  that  in  his  judgment  the  per- 
mit could  be  put  through  by  paying  each  member  of  the  Board 
the  amount  which  Ruef  had  specified,  $4,000. 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  51. 

before  the  fire,  they  were  also  active  in  the  work  of 
rehabilitation — so  far  as  such  activity  served  their  plans 
and  purposes. 

This  was  well  illustrated  by  the  course  of  the  United 
Railroads.  Within  a  fortnight  after  the  fire,  that  cor- 
poration had  established  efficient  service  over  a  number 
of  its  electric  lines.  For  a  time,  passengers  were  car- 
ried without  charge.  On  April  29  and  30,  however, 
fares  were  collected  from  men,  but  not  from  women  and 
children.  With  the  beginning  of  May,  fares  were  col- 
lected from  all  persons.  For  a  time,  in  a  glare  of  much 
publicity,  the  United  Railroads  contributed  these  col- 
lections to  the  fund  for  the  relief  of  the  stricken  city. 

The  Home  Telephone  Company  had  no  plant  to  re- 
store nor  authority  to  establish  one ;  but  on  Ruef's  sug- 
gestion it,  too,  contributed  to  the  fund  for  the  relief  of 
the  stricken  city— $75,000.^' 

The  United  Railroads'  activity  in  restoring  its  elec- 
tric roads,  was  in  curious  contrast  to  its  failure  to  take 
advantage  of  the  possibilities  offered  by  its  cable  sys- 
tems. As  some  excuse  for  this  inactivity,  the  corpora- 
tion's representatives  alleged  that  the  cable  slots  had 
been  closed  by  the  earthquake,  making  restoration  of 
the  cable  roads  impractical. 

The  alleged  closing  of  the  slots  was  even  used  as 
argument    against    the    conduit    electric    system. ^^      But 

51  Supervisor  Gallagher  testified  at  graft  trials  that  Ruef  had 
told  him  the  payment  of  this  $75,000  to  the  Relief  Fund  was  a 
good  thing,  as  it  would  tend  to  shut  off  adverse  criticism.  But 
the  Home  Company  people  had  asked  that  the  money  be  not  turned 
over  to  the  Relief  Fund  until  such  time  as  the  ordinance  granting 
the  franchise  had  been  approved  or  the  matter  definitely  deter- 
mined. 

52  As  early  as  May  5,  C.  E.  Loss,  a  railroad  contractor,  came 
out  with   the  proposition  that  the  city  should   abandon  all  idea  of 


52  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  were  many  to  testify  that  the 
damage  done  the  cable  slots  was  not  from  the  earth- 
quake, although  the  slots  in  the  burned  district  had 
been  warped  more  or  less  by  the  heat  of  the  fire.  But 
this  damage  was  easily  remedied.  On  the  Geary-street 
road,  for  example,  cars  were  run  for  an  hour  or  more 
after  the  earthquake.  The  fire  warped  the  Geary-street 
cable  slot,  but  this  was  easily  and  cheaply  remedied  by 
a  force  of  men  with  cold  chisels  and  hammers.''^ 

conduit  systems,  because  the  cable  slots  had  been  closed  by  the 
earthquake.  In  this,  Loss  was  disputed  by  City  Engineer  Thomas 
P.  Woodward.  Woodward,  in  an  interview  printed  in  the  Exam- 
iner on  May  5,  1906,  said: 

"I  think  Mr.  Loss  was  mistaken  when  he  said  the  earthquake 
closed  the  cable  slots.  I  have  not  made  a  careful  examination  of 
the  various  roadbeds  In  San  Francisco,  but  from  what  I  have  seen 
as  I  have  gone  about  the  city,  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  no  In- 
jury was  done  the  cable  slots  by  the  earthquake. 

"The  lines  on  Sacramento,  California,  Geary,  Sutter  and  Haight 
streets  appear  to  be  all  right  outside  the  burned  district.  Where 
the  metal  was  subjected  to  the  intense  heat,  the  slots  are  warped 
out  of  shape,   and  in  some  places  closed." 

Loss's  allegations  called  forth  the  following  editorial  comment  In 
the  Examiner  of  May  5th: 

"Even  an  earthquake  shock  and  a  conflagration  do  not  long 
obscure  the  vision  of  certain  wealthy  gentlemen  where  there  is  a 
chance  to  turn  a  calamity  to  their  individual  account. 

"Before  the  catastrophe,  San  Francisco  had  indicated  with 
great  emphasis  to  the  United  Railroads  that  it  would  not  permit 
the  reconstruction  of  the  cable  system  into  an  overhead  trolley, 
but  would  insist  upon  a  modern  up-to-date  conduit  electric  rail- 
road, the  safety,  utility  and  efficiency  of  which  had  been  demon- 
strated in  New  York  and  other  Eastern  cities. 

"The  emergency  created  by  the  destruction  of  the  traffic  sys- 
tems in  the  city  has  compelled  permission  for  a  temporary  trolley 
line  because  it  could  be  constructed  more  quickly  than  any  other. 

"It  is  not  intended,  and  the  United  Railroads  must  be  made  to 
realize  that  it  will  not  be  permitted,  that  the  unsightly  poles  and 
dangerous  wires  will  be  allowed  to  cumber  the  new  and  more 
beautiful  San  Francisco,  any  more  than  it  will  be  permitted  that 
the  rough  shacks  and  sheds  which  temporarily  shelter  the  people 
in  parks  and  streets  and  otherwise  vacant  lots  shall  remain  after 
the  emergency  which  called  them  into  being  has  ceased." 

53  A.  D.  Shepard,  vice-president  and  secretary  of  the  Geary- 
street  Railroad  Company,  gave  the  following  statement  to  the 
Examiner  as  to  the  condition  of  the  Geary-stceet  roadbed: 

"We  can  run  cars  as  far  as  the  road  goes,  but  the  power-house 
is  not  ready  for  business.  The  smokestack  at  Geary  and  Bu- 
chanan streets  must  be  built  up  to  comply  with  the  ordinance  of 
the  city  before  we  can  get  a  permit  to  build  fires  under  the  boilers. 
The  smokestack  should  be  repaired  by  the  end  of  this  week,  and 
cars  will  probably  be   run  over  the  road  then.     I  cannot  say  just 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  53 

Statements  from  officials  of  the  United  Railroads, 
now  of  record,  indicate  that  the  company's  cable  lines 
suffered  no  greater  damage  than  did  other  cable  sys- 
tems. An  affidavit  of  Frank  E.  Sharon,  for  example, 
who  before  the  fire  was  superintendent  of  cables  and 
stables  belonging  to  the  United  Railroads,  made  in  the 
adjustment  of  fire  losses  sustained  by  that  corporation, 
sets  forth  that  the  company's  principal  cable  power 
house  and  repair  shops  situate  on  Valencia  street  were 
damaged  but  little  by  the  earthquake.^'*     Although  the 


what  day  we  will  begin  to  run  cars.     All  depends  upon  the  smoke- 
stack and   the  Board   of  Public  Works. 

"Our  line  was  not  injured  by  the  earthquake,  and  we  ran  cars 
for  some  time  after  the  shake.  It  was  the  fire  that  drove  us  out 
of  business.  The  heat  warped  the  slot,  making  it  narrow  in  places 
and  wide  in  other  spots,  but  this  is  easily  remedied."  (See  Exam- 
iner, May  30,  1906.) 

54  Sharon's  affidavit  was  introduced  at  the  graft  trials.     It  was 
as  follows: 
"State  of  California,  City  and  County  of   San  Francisco — ss. 

"Frank  E.  Sharon,  being  first  duly  sworn  according  to  law,  de- 
poses and  says:  That  he  was  for  many  years  prior  to  April  18, 
1906,  the  superintendent  of  cables  and  stables  belonging  to  the 
United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco,  and  situate  at  the  corner  of 
Market  and  Valencia  streets;  that  on  the  property  situate  at  said 
Market  and  Valencia  streets  were  located  what  is  known  as  the 
Market  and  Valencia  Power  House  and  Shops,  consisting  of  power- 
house, stables,  machine  shops,  special  machine  shops,  mill,  offices, 
store-rooms,  sheds,  etc.;  that  he  was  such  superintendent  on  April 
18,  1906;  that  on  the  morning  of  April  18,  1906,  immediately  follow- 
ing the  earthquake  he  proceeded  to  the  above  described  premises, 
arriving  there  at  about  8  a.  m. ;  that  none  of  the  buildings  above 
described  were  materially  damaged  by  the  earthquake;  that  the 
walls  of  all  the  buildings  were  standing  and  intact;  that  the  roofs 
of  all  the  buildings  were  on  and  uninjured  by  the  earthquake,  with 
the  exception  of  the  roof  of  a  portion  of  what  is  known  as  the 
power-house,  which  was  damaged  by  reason  of  a  small  portion  of 
the  chimney  adjoining  the  power-house  on  the  west  falling  thereon; 
that  the  greater  portion  of  said  brick  from  the  top  of  said  chimney 
fell  toward  the  south  or  east  into  the  driveway;  that  extending 
from  the  base  of  said  chimney  to  the  crown  thereof  and  on  the 
east  and  west  side  tjiereof  are  cracks  which  were  in  said  chimney 
for  many  years  prior  to  the  earthquake  of  April  18,  1906,  which 
cracks  were  opened  somewhat  by  said  earthquake;  and  the  boilers 
in  said  power-house  were  not  injured  to  any  extent  and  steam 
was  kept  under  said  >)ollers  f(ir  some  time  after  the  earthquake; 
that  In  his  judgment  the  })ullding  as  a  whole  was  Intact  and  the 
machinery  not  Injm-ed  In  any  material  part  of  the  earthquake;  that 
the   building   cauKht    tlif    ironi    tlip   adjoining   buildings   on    the   east 


54  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

buildings  were  damaged  by  the  fire,  the  damage  to  the 
contents,  including  the  machinery  by  which  the  cable 
cars  were  operated,  was,  according  to  statements  made 
by  the  United  Railroads  in  fire-loss  adjustment,  com- 
paratively small.  The  company  placed  the  sound  value 
upon  this  machinery  and  contents,  after  the  earthquake, 
but  preceding  the  fire,  at  $70,308.80.  The  salvage  was 
placed  at  $60,933.80,  leaving  a  total  fire  loss  of  $9.375. '•' 

The  cable  cars,  with  few  exceptions,  were  saved. 
The  most  serious  loss  of  cars  was  on  the  Powell-street 
system,  where  sixty-four  were  destroyed.  Only  one 
Valencia-street  car  was  burned.  After  both  earthquake 
and  fire,  the  United  Railroads  had  available  at  least  150 
cable  cars  for  its  Market  and  Powell-street  systems. 
This  does  not  include  the  cable  cars  available  on  the 
Hayes  and  McAllister  roads.  The  power-houses  of 
these  two  last-named  systems  were  not  destroyed  by 
fire.  The  allegation  has  been  made  that  the  McAllister- 
street  cable  was  kept  running  for  several  hours  after 
the  earthquake. 

But  whatever  the  possibilities  for  the  restoration  of 


and  southeast  late  in  the  afternoon  of  April  18,  1906;  said  buildings 
were  not  dynamited  nor  backfired  for  any  purpose. 

"F.  E.  SHARON. 
"Subscribed   and   sworn    to   before   me    this   10th   day  of  August, 
A.  D.  1906. 

"CHARLES   R.   HOLTON, 
"Notary  Public  in  and  for  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco, 
State  of  California." 

55  The  loss  included  $25  damage  to  two  engines  which  cost  new 
$24,000;  $2,000  damage  to  six  boilers,  new  cost  $30,000;  $210  water- 
tank,  cost  new  $350;  $500  damage  to  pipes,  valves  and  fittings, 
which  cost  new  $10,500;  material  in  store-room  worth  $2,000,  a 
total  loss;  $4,800  loss  of  two  tension  carriages  used  for  taking  up 
slack  of  the  cable.  These  tension  carriages  could  very  easily  have 
been  restored.  This  loss.  $4,800,  and  the  $2,000  stock  loss,  de- 
ducted from  the  total  of  $9,375,  leaves  a  total  loss  of  $2,575  to  the 
nuifhinery  of  a  plant  estimated  to  have  cost   $115,848. 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  55 

the  United  Railroads'  cable  properties,  no  steps  were 
taken  toward  that  end.  Instead,  trolley  wires  were 
strung  over  the  tracks  of  cable  systems.  Street-car 
service  was  one  of  the  greatest  needs  of  the  first  few 
weeks  following  the  fire.  Statements  that  cable  prop- 
erties could  not  be  restored  were  generally  believed ;  the 
trolley  service  was  accepted  as  a  matter  of  expediency ; 
few  thought,  however,  that  it  was  to  be  permanent.^® 


06  As  late  as  November  13,  1906,  seven  months  after  the  flre, 
the  San  Francisco  Call  published  an  editorial  article  on  the  trolley 
permits  which  showed  that  even  then  their  nature  was  not  fully 
understood.     The  Call   said: 

"The  insolent  disregard  of  public  rig-hts  in  the  streets  by  the 
United  Railroads  is  inspired,  of  course,  by  ulterior  purpose  to  en- 
trench the  corporation  In  the  possession  of  privileges,  permits  or 
franchises  granted  at  a  time  of  stress  and  confusion  whose  legality 
may  and  probably  will  be  questioned  later. 

"The  Call  does  not  desire  to  assume  an  attitude  of  hindering 
or  hampering  progress.  We  recognize  fully  that  every  new  street- 
car line  adds  materially  to  the  value  of  property  within  its  tribu- 
tary territory.  In  a  word,  the  growth  of  a  city  or  a  neighborhood 
is,  to  a  considerable  degree,  dependent  on  facilities  for  urban 
transit. 

"But  it  does  not  follow  from  these  considerations  that  fran- 
chises should  be  granted  for  nothing  to  any  and  every  applicant 
who  is  able  to  construct  a  street  railway.  The  right  to  use  the 
streets  is  the  most  valuable  privilege  possessed  by  a  municipality. 
It  should  be  made  to  yield  a  corresponding  revenue. 

"All  this  might  seem  so  obvious  as  scarcely  to  require  state- 
ment, but  in  practice  the  principles  here  laid  down  have  been  vir- 
tually disregarded  in  San  Francisco.  In  no  instance  was  there 
more  flagrant  disregard  of  public  rights  than  in  the  wholesale 
grants  of  permits  or  franchises  to  construct  overhead  trolley  lines 
made  after  the  fire. 

"The  United  Railroads  at  the  time  professed  to  regard  these 
permits  as  merely  temporary,  but  that  profession  was  not  very 
long  maintained.  The  company  now  declares  that  many,  if  not  all, 
of  these  permits  amount  to  absolute  franchises  in  view  of  the 
capital  Invested  in  making  the  necessary  changes.  Thnt  is  the  ex- 
planation of  the  outrageous  disregard  of  public  rights  shown  in 
tearing  up  some  five  or  six  miles  of  streets  at  once  and  in  different 
parts  of  town.  This  process  is  obviously  wasteful  as  a  financial 
proposition,  and  is  calculated  besides  to  arouse  general  indignation. 
We  find  these  weighty  considerations  disregarded  on  the  advice  of 
the  corporation's  lawyers,  to  bolster  up  an  invalid  claim  to  the 
possession  of  franchises  obtained  by  trick  and  device  in  an  hour 
of  public  confusion. 

"What  the  extent  of  the  corporation's  claim  under  these  per- 
mits may  be  we  are  not  advised,  and  there  is  no  immediate  means 
of  finding  out  as  long  as  the  administration  which  granted  these 
hole-and-corner  permits  remains  in  power.  The  same  influences 
thnt    made    the   Mayor   and    Supet^-i.aors   so    complaisant    to    the    will 


S6 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 


Within  two  weeks  after  the  fire,  the  United  Rail- 
roads had  trolley  wires  strung  over  the  cable  tracks  on 
Market  street.  The  little  objection  made  to  this  course 
went  unheeded.  The  Market-street  trolley  cars,  two 
weeks  after  the  fire,  were  as  welcome  to  The  People  of 
San  Francisco  as  were  the  temporary  shacks  which  were 
being  erected  upon  the  sites  of  the  old  city's  finest 
buildings.  Market-street  trolley  cars  gave  as  sorely- 
needed  transportation  as  the  shacks  gave  needed  shelter. 

The  opening  of  the  Market-street  trolley  line  was 
made  subject  for  rejoicing  throughout  the  city.  In  the 
midst  of  this  good  feeling  toward  his  company.  Presi- 
dent Calhoun  gave  out  that  if  allowed  to  place  over- 
head wires  on  Sutter  and  Larkin  streets,  he  would 
place  2,000  men  at  work  and  have  both  these  lines  in 
operation  within  thirty  days.^^ 

But  the  era  of  good  feeling  was  not  of  long  dura- 

of  the  Ignited  Railroads  are  still  operative.  It  was  only  the  other 
day  that  another  permit  for  a  street-car  line  was  granted,  and 
granted    illegallj'.      This   administration    stays   bought. 

"Therefore,  the  streets  are  torn  up  in  a  dozen  different  parts  of 
town  and  left  in  tliat  condition  untouched  for  months  with  the 
full  consent  of  the  administration.  But  this  political  condition 
is  not  permanent.  Some  of  these  people  will  go  to  jail.  They  will 
all  be  ousted  at  the  next  election.  San  Francisco  has  had  enough 
of  them. 

"The  United  Railroads  is  endeavoring  to  fortify  one  wrong  by 
committing  another.  These  things  wilt  not  be  forgotten  in  a  hurry. 
We  are  convinced  that  the  corporation  is  pursuing  a  shortsighted 
policy.  Costly  litigation  must  ensue  to  test  the  validity  and  extent 
of  the  overhead  trolley  permits.  The  people  will  not  consent  to 
see  their  most  valuable  property  traded  away  by  a  lot  of  con- 
scienceless boodlers,  and  if  it  should  prove  that  the  United  Rail- 
roads has  been  able  to  make  two  wrongs  constitute  one  right,  it 
is  very  certain  that  a  movement  of  irresistible  force  will  follow 
for  a  reduction  of  street-car  fares. 

"We  are  convinced  that  it  will  pay  the  United  Railroads  to  be 
fair  and  decent  with  the  people  of  San  Francisco.  The  present 
policy  is  neither  fair  nor  decent.  The  service  is  bad,  public  rights 
in  the  streets  are  outraged,  and,  worst  of  all,  the  corporation  is 
the  most  malign,  corrupting  influence  in  the  politics  of  our  munic- 
ipal  government.     There  will   come  a   reckoning." 

57  See  statement  pi-lnted  In  .San  Francisco  Examiner,  May  4. 
1906. 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  57 

tion.  On  May  14,  less  than  a  month  after  the  fire, 
the  Supervisors  received  a  communication  signed  by 
President  Calhoun  as  President  of  the  United  Rail- 
roads, setting  forth  that  if  the  board  would  permit  the 
use  on  the  cable  Hnes  of  the  standard  electric  system 
in  use  on  the  company's  other  lines,  the  United  Rail- 
roads would  be  glad  to  put  all  of  their  lines  in  com- 
mission as  rapidly  as  could  be  accomplished  by  the  most 
liberal  expenditure  of  money  and  the  largest  possible 
employment  of  men.^* 

That  very  day,  the  Supervisors  took  the  initial  step 
toward  granting  to  the  United  Railroads  a  blanket  per- 


58  Calhoun's  letter  to  the  Supervisors  read; 

"United  Railroads  of  San   Francisco. 
"President's   Office. 

"San  Francisco,  May  14,    1906. 

"To  the  Honorable  Board  of  Supervisors  of  the  City  of  San 
Francisco — Gentlemen:  The  United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco  re- 
spectfully represents  that,  notwithstanding-  its  urgent  and  earnest 
efforts  to  provide  adequate  street  railway  transportation  on  the 
lines  being  operated,  constant  pressure  is  being  applied  and  innu- 
merable requests  are  being  presented  to  it  to  increase  its  trans- 
portation facilities. 

"The  company  is  anxious  to  please  the  people,  and  is  willing  to 
do  its  part  in  the  immediate  upbuilding  of  the  Greater  San  Fran- 
cisco, but  owing  to  the  unavailability  of  material  and  machinery 
for  operating  its  cable  systems,  as  well  as  the  great  length  of 
time  necessary  to  rebuild  destroyed  power-houses  and  reconstruct 
its  cable  conduits,  a  long  time  would  necessarily  elapse  before  the 
cable  systems  could  be  operated  so  as  to  give  the  required  relief 
to  trafflc  congestion. 

"If  your  Honorable  Board  will  permit  the  use  on  the  cable  lines 
of  a  standard  electric  system  such  as  is  now  used  on  the  com- 
pany's other  lines,  we  will  be  glad  to  put  all  of  our  lines  in  com- 
mission, and  will  agree  to  have  them  in  complete  operation  wher- 
ever grades  will  permit  as  rapidly  as  the  most  liberal  expenditure 
of  money  and  the  largest  possible  employment  of  men  will  accom- 
plish. The  necessary  expenditure  for  labor  and  materials  to  do 
this  work  will  run  into  the  millions,  and  will  afford  much-needed 
cinployment  to  several  thousand  deserving  men. 

"We  believe  the  prompt  reconstruction  of  your  lines  of  trans- 
portation will  inspire  confidence  in  all  investing  capital  and  greatly 
aid   In   the  prompt   rebuilding  of  your  city. 

"We    submit    these    suggestions    for    your    consideration    at    the 
request  of  many  of  our  citizens  from  every  walk  of  life. 
"Respectfully, 

"PAT.   C.A.LHOUN,  President." 


S8 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 


mit,  authorizing  that  corporation  to  substitute  the  trol- 
ley system  for  all  its  cable  lines. 

Immediately,  San  Francisco's  opposition  to  the  trol- 
ley system  was  revived.  All  classes  joined  in  con- 
demning the  action  of  the  board.  The  Sutter  Street 
Improvement  Club,  representing  large  down-town  in- 
terests and  property  holders,  adopted  resolutions  de- 
manding that  the  Supervisors  refuse  to  grant  the  per- 
mit. The  San  Francisco  Labor  Council,  representing 
over  100  affiliated  unions,  with  a  membership  of  more 
than  30,000  wage  earners,  declared  as  strongly  against 
such  action.  The  press  charged  the  United  Railroads 
with  taking  advantage  of  the  city's  distress  to  force  the 
trolley  upon  her.'^'^ 

59  The  trolley  permit  was  passed  to  print  on  May  14.  The  Ex- 
aminer,  in  its  issue  of  May  15,  said: 

"The  United  Railroads,  with  the  rapacity  for  which  it  has  ever 
been  noted,  is  seeking  to  capitalize  the  city's  woe  to  its  own  ad- 
vantage. 

"Before  the  disaster  of  April  18  it  had  been  balked  in  its  pur- 
pose to  make  San  Francisco  a  trolley  town.  The  protests  of  citi- 
zens who  knew  that  the  underground  system  is  better  than  the 
cheap,  unsightly  trolley  system  and  had  been  proved  safer,  had 
blocked  the  United  Railroads  project.  And  it  seemed  certain  that 
the  scheme  to  cumber  Market  street  and  Sutter  street  with  poles 
and  wires  was  definitely  stopped. 

"The  emergency  which  demanded  the  swiftest  possible  estab- 
lishment of  a  transportation  system,  gave  the  United  Railroads  its 
opportunity  to  revive  the  discreditable  scheme.  As  an  emergency 
service  nobody  could  object  to  the  overhead  trolleys.  But  it  was 
understood  that  the  service  was  absolutely  temporary  in  its  char- 
acter and  should  only  obtain  during  the  pendency  of  present  con- 
ditions. 

"Yesterday,  however,  there  appeared  out  of  the  void  of  forbidden 
things  an  ordinance  that  was  hastily  passed  to  print,  granting  a 
franchise  to  the  United  Railroads  to  trolleyize  its  whole  system. 

"It  was  expected  evidently  that  this  iniquitous  measure  could 
be  sneaked  through  under  cover  of  the  present  stress  and  excite- 
ment without  people  realizing  until  it  was  too  late  what  had  been 
done. 

"When  the  scheme  was  flushed  it  was  still  attempted  to  make 
it  appear  that  this  was  a  temporary  measure,  a  representation  ab- 
solutely varying  with  the  language  of  the  ordinance. 

"But  the  scheme  has  not  succeeded  yet. 

"It  was  to  be  expected  that,  like  the  looters  who  have  to  be 
kept  from  other  people's  property  by  soldiers  and  police,  San  Fran- 
cisco's   misfortune   would    bring   out    a   horde    of   corporate    ghouls 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  59 

Then  came  explanations  and  defense.  Mayor 
Schmitz  in  public  interviews  set  forth  that  the  proposed 
permit  was  not  a  permanent  measure,  nor  under  its 
provisions  could  the  United  Railroads  indefinitely  oper- 
ate trolley  cars  in  Market  street.*^'^  The  Labor  Council 
which  had  at  first  adopted  resolutions  condemning  the 
policy  of  granting"  the  permit,  adopted  resolutions  of 
confidence  in  the  "present  city  administration."  Presi- 
dent Calhoun  himself  solicited  citizens  to  attend  the 
meeting  of  the  board  at  which  a  vote  was  to  be  taken 
on  the  proposed  permit,  to  urge  action  favorable  to  the 
United  Railroads.^^ 


eager  to  snatch  privileges  during  the  time  of  disorder.  But  it  was 
hkewise  to  be  expected  that  the  city  administration,  which  has 
been  so  alert  to  protect  private  property,  would  be  equally  alert 
to  protect  the  prefious  possessions  of  the  city. 

"The  railroads  can  only  do  what  the  city  permits,  and  a  sti'ong 
official  scrutiny  of  the  ordinance  which  was  yesterday  passed  to 
print  should  result  in  its  final  defeat. 

"No  matter  what  other  claims  an  administration  may  have  to 
the  gratitude  and  respect  of  the  citizens  of  San  Francisco,  it  cannot 
afford  to  be  know-n  as  the  administration  that  put  trolley  poles  on 
Market  street." 

60  The  day  that  the  ordinance  granting  the  trolley  permit  was 
ordered  printed,  Mayor  Schmitz  stated  in  an  interview  as  published 
in  the  Examiner: 

"The  proposed  franchise  is  merely  a  temporary  measure.  It 
does  not  mean  that  the  United  Railroads  can  indefinitely  operate 
their  cars  by  the  overhead  trolley  in  Market  street,  or  in  the 
streets  formerly  occupied  by  cable  roads.  It  is  necessary  now  to 
liave  transportation.  The  cable  roads  cannot  be  repaired,  I  am 
told,  for  some  time.  Meanwhile,  the  franchise  to  string  overhead 
wires  has  been  granted.     It  can  be  revoked." 

61  At  the  Calhoun  trial,  William  H.  Sanderson  testified  to  hav- 
ing been  introduced  to  Calhoun  by  Ruef  at  a  public  meeting,  a  few 
days  before  the  trolley  permit  was  granted.     He  was  then  asked: 

"Q.  What,  if  any,  conversation  then  ensued  between  yourself, 
Mr.  Ruef  and  Mr.  Calhoun?  A.  Well,  I  stated — Mr.  Calhoun  was 
at  that  time  sitting  at  a  large  table  in  the  room,  where  the  com- 
mittee had  held  its  session,  and  he  rose  out  of  his  seat,  and  the 
three  of  us  held  a  conversation  following  that  introduction.  I 
stated  to  Mr.  Calhoun — I  asked  him  when  the  people  of  North 
Beach  were  or  might  expect  railroad  facilities,  that  the  population 
was  coming  back  to  that  portion  of  the  city,  and  that  other  por- 
tions of  the  city  were  provided  with  facilities,  and  that  we  were 
compelled  to  walk  through  miles  of  burned  district  in  order  to  get 
anywhere;    and   Mr.    Calhoun    said    in   reply,    that   if   the   people   of 


6o  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

Long  before   the   board   met  to   take   final   action   it 
was  recognized  that   in  spite  of  opposition   the  permit 


San  Francisco  desired  railroad  facilities,  they  should  co-operate 
with  the  railroad  company  that  was  here  to  provide  them  with  the 
same;  and  I  said  to  Mr.  Calhoun  that  I  thought  that  we  were 
ready  to  do  anything  that  the  company  desired  us  to  do,  and  asked 
him  what  in  particular  he  wished  us  to  do,  and  he  said:  'There  is 
that  trolley  privilege  matter  before  the  Supervisors;  that  comes  up 
next  Monday,  and  you  people  of  San  Francisco  ought  to  come  down 
before  that  Board,  that  the  people  of  San  Francisco,  or  you,  are 
vitally  interested  in  the  matter  of  this  trolley  permit.'  Mr.  Ruef 
tlien  said:  'Come  down  before  the  Board  next  Monday,  Sanderson, 
and  make  a  talk  on  behalf  of  your  organization  in  favor  of  the 
trolley  permit.  We  will  see  that  you  get  the  privilege  of  the  floor. 
A  number  of  citizens  of  San  Francisco  will  be  there,  and  we  pro- 
pose to  show  the  press  that  the  people  of  San  Francisco  are  behind 
this  permit.'  I  said  to  Mr.  Calhoun:  'The  papers  tell  me  that 
this  is  a  very  valuable  franchise  and  you  ought  to  pay  the  city 
something  for  it.'  And  Mr.  Calhoun  said  in  substance  that  he 
thought  that  the  company  would  be  paying  all  that  the  privileges 
was  worth  if  it  built  the  road.  Then  I  suggested  to  him  that  per- 
haps that  sentiment  which  objected  to  the  disfigurement  of  Market 
street  and  Sutter  street  by  the  erection  of  poles  and  wires,  ought 
to  be  placated  to  some  extent,  and  I  asked  him  why  he  would  not 
at  least  put  the  feed-wires  under  ground;  and  he  said  that  that 
would  entail  an  expense  which  the  company  at  that  time  was  not 
or  did  not  think  it  advisable  to  meet.  And  then  I  asked  him  why 
he  would  not  put  the  poles  200  feet  apart  instead  of  100  as — or  200 
feet  apart,  as  was  done  in  European  cities,  and  he  said  that  the 
100- foot  system  was  the  more  advisable  in  his  opinion.  And  then 
Mr.  Ruef  said  to  me:  'The  passage  of  this  permit  will  mean  im- 
mediate work  for  5,000  men.  We  will  be  able  to  take  them  out  of 
tiie  camps  and  put  them  at  work.'  And  I  said  to  Mr.  Ruef:  'That 
is  all  very  well,  Mr.  Ruef,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  another 
side  to  this  question — a  political  side.  The  people  of  San  Fran- 
cisco are  at  last  all  behind  your  administration.  What  they  need 
in  this  crisis  is  leadership,  and  we  will  have  to  take  such  leader- 
ship as  you  give  us;  and  now  that  everybody  is  with  you,  and 
even  the  Bulletin  has  quit,  it  is  not  good  policy  on  your  part  to 
stir  up  another  newspaper  war.  The  Examiner  has  been  your 
friend  ever  since  Schmitz  was  first  elected,  and  it  will  not  swallow 
the  trolley  proposition  in  its  present  form,  and  it  is  charging  your 
administration  with  corruption.  If  it  persists  in  its  fight  it  will 
eventually  break  your  back.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  a 
comparatively  easy  matter^  to  placate  this  opposition  by  exacting 
soine  compensation  for  this  permit,  either  in  the  way  of  cash  or  by 
way  of  a  percentage  of  the  proceeds  of  the  road,  or  you  might 
limit  it  as  to  time;  give  them  a  permit  for  five  or  ten  years.  You 
have  them  at  your  mercy  and  they  are  bound  to  accept  whatever 
terms  you  prescribe.'  Mr.  Ruef  then  said:  'To  hell  with  the  Ex- 
aminer, no  public  man  can  afford  to  swallow  that  paper.  This 
thing  will  go  through  on  Monday.  It  is  all  settled.'  And  then  I 
said:  'You  don't  need  me  then,'  and  Mr.  Calhoun  said:  'I  don't 
think  we  do,  Mr.  Sanderson.'  That  is  all  the  conversation,  or  that 
is  substantially  all  the  conversation  that  took  place  In  regard  to 
that  matter." 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  6i 

would  be  granted."-  And  it  was  granted.  On  j\Iay  21, 
the  Supervisors  passed  the  ordinance  which  gave  the 
United  Railroads  authority  to  convert  its  cable  systems. 
wherever  grades  would  permit,  into  trolley  lines.  For 
this  privilege,  no  money  compensation,  nor  promise  of 
compensation,  was  made  the  city."^ 

Demand  that  Mayor  Schmitz  veto  the  ordinance 
granting  these  extraordinary  privileges  followed.  Nev- 
ertheless, the  Mayor  affixed  his  signature  to  the  trolley 
permit-granting  ordinance. 

Fair  expression  of  the  feeling  this  action  engendered 
will  be  found  in  the  San  Francisco  papers  of  the  latter 
part  of  May,  1906.  "Mayor  Eugene  E.  Schmitz."  said 
the  Examiner,  for  example,  "has  betrayed  the  trust 
reposed  in  him  by  the  people,  violated  his  solemn  pledge 
in  favor  of  an  underground  conduit  system,  and  joined 
Abe  Ruef  and  the  United  Railroads  in  the  shameless 
work  of  looting  the  city  at  the  time  of  her  greatest 
need." 

The    Ruef-Schmitz    administration    protested    at    the 

02  Said  the  Examiner  in  its  issue  of  May  16,  1906:  "It  looks 
very  much  as  if  Patrick  Calhoun,  Thornwell  Mullally  and  their  pals 
of  the  United  Railroads  had  sneaked  up  behind  San  Francisco  just 
as  she  lay  wounded  from  earthfiuake  and  conflagration.  In  the 
Ruise  of  helping-  her,  they  were  caught  picking  her  pocket.  If  the 
Supervisors  aid  and  abet  them,  the  people  will  be  warranted  in 
setting  up  their  effigies  in  la.sting  bronze,  a  group  of  everlasting 
infamy,  with  the  inscription:  'THESE  MEN  LOOTED  SAN  FRAN- 
CISCO  AT   THE   TIME   OF  THE   GREAT   FIRE  OF   1906.'  " 

03  Of  the  failure  to  exact  pay  for  the  franchise,  the  E.\aminer 
of  May  17.  1906,   said: 

"Mayor  Schmitz  and  the  Boai'd  of  Supervisors  must  know,  and 
If  they  do  not  knov/  they  are  now  informed,  that  the  franchises 
they  propose  to  give  away  to  the  United  Railroads  are  worth  a 
great  deal  of  money  to  the  city  of  San  Francisco,  and  they  cer- 
tainly do  know  tliat  the  city  never  was  so  greatly  in  need  of  money 
as  now.  To  gi\'e  away  so  much  of  value  at  such  a  time  is  so 
liideous  a  crime  that  it  will  leave  a  scar  upon  the  reputation  of 
everybody  concerned  in  it,  no  matter  what  that  reputation  has  been 
up  to  the  time  of  the  infamy." 


62  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

criticism.  The  eighteen  Supervisors,  seventeen  of  whom 
were  within  a  year  to  confess  that  they  had  accepted 
bribes  and  all  of  whom  were  to  be  involved  in  the 
scandal,  joined  in  a  letter  '^*  to  the  Examiner,  announc- 
ing that  such  criticism  was  unwarranted,  and  injured 
the  city.  The  letter  contained  veiled  threat  that  ques- 
tioning of  the  Supervisors'  motives  would  not  be  tol- 
erated. The  threat,  however,  intimidated  nobody.  Crit- 
icism of  Ruef  and  the  administration  continued. 

But  in  spite  of  the  hostility  toward  him,  Ruef  con- 
trolled the  San  Francisco  delegates  who  were  named 
that  year  to  attend  the  Republican  State  convention. 
The  convention  met  at  Santa  Cruz.  Ruef  held  the  bal- 
ance of  power.     He   was  the   most  sought  man  there. 


r.4  The  Supervisors'  letter  to  the  Examiner  was  as  follows: 

"San  Francisco,  Cal.,  May  26,  1906. 

"To  'The  San  Francisco  Examiner,'  City — Gentlemen:  The 
Board  of  Supervisors  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  re- 
gretting the  hostile  stand  wliich  your  journal  has  in  these  dis- 
tressing times  assumed  toward  the  rebuilding  of  our  destroyed  city, 
by  indiscriminately  attacking  every  vested  interest  and  all  intend- 
ing investments  of  capital  in  this  city,  respectfully  submits  for  your 
consideration  the  propriety  of  joining  with  instead  of  assailing 
those  who  are  in  good  faith  and  with  their  energy  and  ability  striv- 
ing to  restore  and  rebuild  our  beloved  city. 

"Irrespective  of  any  personal  feeling  caused  by  your  wanton 
attacks  on  his  Honor  the  Mayor,  and  on  this  Board,  we  ask  of  you, 
as  citizens  of  San  Francisco  and  as  the  legislative  branch  of  our 
government,  to  cease  your  thoughtless  and  dangerous  efforts  to 
drive  away  from  our  city  every  interest  which  has  expressed  its  in- 
tention to  assist  in  our  rebuilding  and  which  has  manifested  a 
practical  confidence  in  our  future.  Otherwise,  the  day  will  cer- 
tainly not  be  far  distant  when  the  people,  realizing  the  result  of 
your  course,  will  seek  to  protect  the  city  against  its  further  con- 
tinuance. 

"In  all  good  faith  for  the  city's  interests  and  without  any  per- 
sonal rancor,  these  suggestions  are  submitted  to  your  careful  at- 
tention. 

"Respectfully,  James  L.  Gallagher,  Max  Mamlock.  Chas.  Boxton, 
Li.  A.  Rea,  F.  P.  Nicholas,  Andrew  M.  Wilson,  Geo.  F.  Duffey,  J.  J. 
Furey.  M.  W.  Coffey,  Daniel  G.  Coleman,  C.  J.  Harrigan,  J.  .T.  Phil- 
lips, P.  M.  McGushin,  E.  I.  Walsh,  Sam  Davis,  Jas.  T.  Kelly, 
Thomas  F.   Lonergan,   W.   W.   Sanderson." 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  63 

He  had  the  nomination  for  Governor  in  -his  hands. 
He  gave  it  to  James  N.  Gillett.®^ 

While  the  convention  was  in  session,  a  dinner  was 
given  the  State  leaders  of  the  Republican  party  at  the 
home  of  Major  F>ank  McLaughlin,  then  Chairman  of 
the  Republican  State  Central  Committee.  Ruef  was  one 
of  the  select  few  present.  A  flash-light  picture  of  that 
banquet  board  shows  him  seated  in  the  place  of  honor 
at  the  center  of  the  table,  the  remaining  guests  with  the 
exception  of  the  host,  McLaughlin,  who  is  seated  at 
Ruef's  side,  standing. 

At  Ruef's  back  stands  James  N.  Gillett,  who  had 
just  received,  with  Ruef's  assistance,  the  party  nomina- 
tion for  Governor,  his  hand  resting  upon  Ruef's  shoul- 
der. Others  in  this  flash-light  group  are  George  Hatton, 
political  manipulator,  whose  connection  with  the  1905 
mayoralty  campaign  in  San  Francisco  has  already  been 
noted ;  J.  W.  McKinley,  head  of  the  Southern  Pacific 
Law  Department  at  Los  Angeles,  who  w^as  chairman  of 
the  convention ;  Rudolph  Herold,  a  politician  prominent 
in  the  counsels  of  the  old  "Southern  Pacific  machine" ; 
Justice  F.  W.  Henshaw  of  the  California  Supreme 
Bench,  who  was  nominated  at  the  convention  for  re- 
election f'^    Walter    F.    Parker,    political    agent    for    the 

65  Ruef,  in  his  story  of  his  political  career.  "The  Road  I  Trav- 
eled," states  that  in  an  interview  with  William  F.  Herrin,  chief 
of  the  Southern  Pacific  law  department,  previous  to  the  primary 
campaign,  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  primary  campaign  and 
of  the  primary  election  were  discussed.  Herrin,  according  to 
Ruef's  account,  agreed  not  to  oppose  the  Ruef  tickets.  "As  agreed 
prior  to  the  primary,"  Ruef  goes  on  to  say  in  his  narrative:  "Her- 
rin paid  me  $14,000  for  the  purpose  of  securing  for  his  organization 
the  certainty  of  the  votes  of  the  San  Francisco  delegation."  See 
San  Francisco  Bulletin,   August  31,  1912. 

66  Henshaw  was  re-elected,  .\fter  Ruef  had  been  convicted  and 
the  Appellate  Court  had  refused  to  grant  him  a  new  trial,  Hen- 
shaw, before  the  briefs  had  been  filed  in   the   matter  of  the  appeal 


64  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

Southern  Pacific  Company;  Warren  R.  Porter,  who  had 
just  received  the  nomination  for  Lieutenant-Governor; 
Congressman  J.  R.  Knovvland,  prominent  in  the  counsels 
of  the  "machine"  that  at  the  time  dominated  the  State, 
and  Judge  F.  H.  Kerrigan  of  the  Appellate  Bench, 
whose  decision  in  favor  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Com- 
pany while  on  the  Superior  Bench,  in  the  so-called  San 
Joaquin  Valley  railroad  rate  case,  made  him  a  con- 
spicuous figure  in  California  public  life.*^ 

The  group  represented  the  most  efifective  forces  at 
the  time  in  California  politics.  Ruef,  at  the  Santa  Cruz 
convention,  reached  the  height  of  his  power.  He  left 
Santa  Cruz  planning  a  State  organization  that  would 
make  him  as  great  a  factor  in  State  politics  as  he  was 
at  the  metropolis. 

But  on  his  return  to  San  Francisco,  Ruef  found  him- 
self harassed  by  criticism  and  beset  by  opposition.  At 
every  point  in  the  municipal  administration,  with  the 
exception  of  the  District  Attorney's  offtce,  was  sugges- 
tion of  graft  and  incompetency.  The  police  department 
could  not,  or  would  not,  control  the  criminal  element. 
Merchants,  in  the  middle  of  the  day,  were  struck  down 
at  their  places  of  business  and  robbed.  Several  were 
fatally  injured  in  such  attacks,  being  found  dying  and 
even  dead  behind  their  counters.  Street  robberies  were 
of  daily  occurrence. 

In  the  acres  of  ash-strewn  ruins,  was  junk  worth 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars.     The  police  seemed 


from  the  Appellate  to  the  Supreme  Court,  signed  an  order  granting 
Ruef  a  new  hearing.     See  Chapter  XXIX. 

67  See    decisions    in    Edson    vs.    The    Southern    Pacific    Co.,    133 
Cal.   Reports  and  144  Cal.  Reports. 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  65 

utterly  powerless  to  protect  this  property.  It  became 
the  loot  of  unchecked  bands  of  thieves. 

A  reign  of  terror  prevailed.  Citizens  feared  to  ap- 
pear on  the  streets  at  night.  Merchants  charged  that  their 
business  was  seriously  injured  by  these  conditions.  On 
all  sides,  blame  was  placed  upon  the  Schmitz  adminis- 
tration which  Ruef  was  known  to  control.*'® 

Then  again,  Ruef's  toll  from  the  tolerated  gambling, 
saloon  and  social  evil  interests  was  getting  too  heavy 
for  his  own  safety.**^  The  public  was  given  hint  of  this 
when  the  newspapers  quoted  George  Renner,  a  promi- 
nent businessman,  as  asserting  that  a  liquor  license  could 
be  secured  if  the  applicant  "put  the  matter  into  Ruef's 
liands  and  paid  a  fat  little  fee."  Ruef,  in  his  reply, 
stated  that  the  liquor  people  were  nuisances  anyhow. 
Ruef  had  long  acted  as  attorney  for  the  California 
Liquor    Dealers'    Association.      The    Association,    after 

68  Nor  was  this  critici.sm  confined  to  San  Francisco;  it  was  gen- 
eral throughout  the  Stat*^.  The  Sacramento  Bee,  in  describing  the 
conditions  prevailing  at   San  Francisco,   said: 

"In  the  hold-ups  which  are  now  terrorizing  the  people  of  San 
Francisco  tlie  citizens  ai-e  seeing  the  effects  of  a  loose  or  dishonest 
municipal  administration.  The  form  of  lawlessness  now  prevailing 
in  San  Francisco  follows  upon  bad  local  government  as  inevitably 
as  night  follows  day." 

I'S  Definite  figures,  alleged  to  be  the  graft  schedule  enforced 
in  tlic  San  Francisco  tenderloin  after  the  fire,  were  published.  The 
Chronicle  of  April  24,  1907,  said  on  this  score: 

^  *'After  the  great  disaster  of  last  April,  or  so  soon  as  the  new 
tenderloin  began  to  build  up  and  the  Barbary  Coast  district  began 
to  establish  itself,  a  schedule  of  prices  for  protected  vice  was  for- 
mulated. This  schedule  has  been  rigidly  adhered  to.  In  the  case 
of  houses  of  ill-fame,  the  proprietors  were  required  to  pay  the  po- 
licemen on  the  beat  the  sum  of  .$5,  the  sergeants  $15,  the  captains 
$25,  and  the  chief  of  police  .$75  to  ?100  every  week  for  the  privilege 
of  conducting  their  nefarious  business.  The  gambling  houses  were 
assessed  according  to  their  ability  to  pay,  but  the  average  price 
for  police  protection,  according  to  Heney,  was  about  the  same  as 
the  houses  of  i)rostitution.  The  dives  along  Pacific  street  and  in 
the  Barbary  Coast  diftiict  were  required  to  pay  $50  every  week  to 
the  police  captain  and  the  chief,  those  two  functionaries  presumably 
dividing  the  money.  The  sporting  saloons  where  women  of  the 
night  life  congregate  were  taxed  a  .'■■imilar  amount." 


66  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

Ruef's  flippant  characterization  of  the  liquor  people, 
boldly  dispensed  with  his  services  and  employed  another 
attorney,  Herbert  Choynski,  in  his  stead.  Choynski 
made  no  effort  to  placate  Rnef.  On  the  contrary,  he 
gave  out  interviews  to  the  press  charging  that  Ruef 
had  received  $500,000  for  the  trolley  permit,  and  that 
each  Supervisor  had  been  given  $4000  or  $5000  for  his 
vote. 

This  story  was  given  some  credit,  although  few  real- 
ized the  amount  of  truth  it  contained. 

The  Supervisors  were  spending  money  freely.  Men. 
who  in  private  life  had  earned  less  than  $100  a  month, 
and  as  Supervisors  were  receiving  only  that  amount. 
gave  evidence  of  being  generously  supplied  with  funds. 
Supervisor  Coffey,  a  hack  driver,  took  a  trip  to  Chicago. 
Lonergan,  driver  of  a  delivery  wagon,  announced  plans 
for  a  tour  of  Ireland  with  his  wife  and  children.  Wil- 
son planned  a  trip  through  the  Eastern  States.  The 
official  head  of  the  administration,  IMayor  Schmitz,  left 
on  a  trip  to  Europe,  leaving  Supervisor  Gallagher  as 
acting  Mayor.""  Reports  printed  in  San  Francisco  pa- 
pers of  Schmitz,  the  orchestra  player,  as  guest  of  the 
most  expensive  European  hotels,  did  not  tend  to  lessen 
the  opposition  to  the  administration. 

■n  Ruef  advised  strongly  against  Schmitz  leaving  San  Francisco. 
In  an  interview  printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  May  16,  1907, 
the  day  after  he  had  plead  guilty  to  a  charge  of  extorting  money 
from  French  restaurant  dives,  Ruef  said: 

"The  great  mistake  of  this  whole  thing  began  with  the  Mayor's 
trip  to  Europe.  The  Mayor  had  been  proclaimed  as  the  man  of 
the  hour  after  the  disaster  of  last  April.  He  was  suddenly  seized 
with  the  desire  of  making  a  trip  to  Europe,  where  he  expected  to 
be  received  a.s  one  of  ttie  crowned  heads.  He  thought  his  fame 
would  spread  throughout  the  v.orld  and  he  hoped  to  be  lionized 
abroad  and,  incidentally,  gain  social  prestige.  The  whole  thing 
was  a  mistake.  I  begged  him  not  to  go.  I  pointed  out  to  him 
that  the  city  was  in  ruins  and  the  place  for  the  Mayor  was  at 
lion.r'.     He  persisted,  and  all  my  pleadings  were  in  vain." 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  67 

The  general  dissatisfaction  with  the  administration 
finally  found  expression  in  a  mass  meeting  intended  to 
inaugurate  a  movement  to  rid  the  community  of  Ruef's 
influence. ^^  The  meeting  was  called  in  the  name  of 
various  promotion  associations  and  improvement  clubs. 
It  was  to  have  been  held  in  the  rooms  of  the  California 
Promotion  Association,  a  temporary  shack  that  had 
been  erected  in  Union  Square,  a  public  i^ark  in  the 
business  district.  But  the  crowd  which  gathered  was  so 
great  that  the  meeting  had  to  be  held  in  the  park  itself. 

When  the  committee  in  charge  met  to  complete  final 
preparations,  preliminary  to  calling  the  meeting  to  order, 
Ruef  and  Acting  ]\[ayor  Gallagher,  with  astonishing 
assurance,  appeared  before  the  committee  and  ofifered 
their  co-operation  in  the  work  in  hand.  Their  presence 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  welcome.  Nevertheless, 
before  the  resolutions  which  the  committee  had  under 
consideration  were  read  before  the  crowd,  all  harsh 
references  to  Ruef  and  the  municipal  administration  had 
been  expurgated.  In  effect,  the  expurgated  resolutions 
called  upon  commercial  organizations,  clubs,  labor  unions 
and  similar  bodies  to  form  a  committee  of  100  for 
public  safety. 

In  the  meeting  which  followed  the  expurgation  of 
the  resolutions,  the  organizers  of  the  movement  lo'-t 
control.  Their  counsel  was  for  moderation  in  a  situa- 
tion where  all  elements  were  at  work. 


"1  At  a  prc-liniinary  mefting  of  the  organizp-is  of  this  irio\onient. 
held  in  thf  office  of  the  Californiti  Canners.  October  10.  1906,  re- 
sponsii)ilitv  for  the  state  of  affairs  in  San  Francisco  was  charged 
to  Ruef.  Tt  was  stated  at  this  meeting-,  and  given  out  to  the  press, 
that  convincins'  evidence  had  been  secured  against  Ruef  wliich 
warranted  his  prosecution. 


68  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

The  crowd  was  made  up  of  Riief  claqtiers  who 
shouted  everybody  down ;  members  of  Labor  Unions 
who  had  been  led  to  believe  that  the  purpose  of  the 
gathering  was  to  break  down  the  unions ;  and  of  radi- 
cals who  were  for  proceeding  immediately  to  clean  up 
the  town.  Those  responsible  for  the  gathering  appeared 
appalled  at  its  magnitude,  and  showed  themselves  unable 
to  cope  with  the  situation. 

William  A.  Doble  presided.  Samuel  M.  Shortridge, 
an  attorney  who  was  to  play  a  prominent  part  in  the 
graft  trials,  stood  at  Doble's  side  and  acted  as  a  sort  of 
director  of  the  proceedings.  The  expurgated  resolutions 
were  read  by  the  President  of  the  Merchants'  Associa- 
tion, E.  R.  Lillienthal.  The  ayes  were  called  for  and 
the  resolutions  declared  to  have  been  adopted.  The 
next  moment  announcement  was  made  that  the  meeting 
stood  adjourned. 

An  angry  demonstration  followed.  The  people  had 
met  to  discuss  lawlessness.  They  refused  to  be  put  oflf. 
The  adjourned  meeting  refused  to  adjourn.  There  were 
cries  of  Drive  Ruef  out  of  Town.  One  speaker, 
A.  B.  Truman,  denounced  Ruef  as  a  grafter.  For  the 
moment  an  outbreak  seemed  imminent.  At  this  crisis, 
Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  appeared. 

'T  would  suggest,"  he  announced,''^  "that  you  dis- 
perse to  your  respective  homes." 

72  Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  was  emphatic  in  declaring  that  no 
vigilance  committee  should  disgrace  San  Francisco.  The  interior 
press,  which  was  following  the  San  Francisco  situation  closely  and 
from  an  independent  standpoint,  advised  Mayor  Gallagher  that  the 
best  way  to  prevent  organization  of  such  a  committee  would  be  to 
enforce  the  laws.     Said  the  Stockton  Record: 

"If  Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  and  his  associates  wish  to  abate 
the  agitation  in  favor  of  a  committee  of  safety  for  San  Francisco. 
they  should  do  less  talking  and  take  more  energetic  action  against 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  69 

Citizens  who  did  not  care  to  participate  in  what 
threatened  to  become  a  riot  began  leaving  the  park. 
But  Ruef  s  henchmen  did  not  leave. 

Ruef,  who  had  cowered  in  fright  when  the  crowd 
was  denouncing  him,  was  concealed  in  a  room  in  the  so- 
called  Little  St.  Francis  Hotel,  which  after  the  fire  had 
been  erected  in  Union  Square  Park.  From  his  hiding 
place  he  could  see  the  crowd  without  being  seen.  At 
the  right  time,  he  appeared  on  the  steps  of  the  building 
which  were  used  for  the  speaker's  stand.  His  followers, 
now  in  a  majority,  cheered  him  wildly.  The  next 
moment,  Ruef  was  in  control  of  the  meeting  which  had 
been  called  to  protest  against  the  conditions  in  San 
Francisco,  for  which  the  administration,  of  which  he 
was  the  recognized  head,  was  held  to  be  accountable/^ 

the  thug  element.  The  police  department  of  the  afflicted  city  is 
now  virtually  on  trial.  It  is  even  iinder  suspicion  of  offenses  graver 
than  that  of  inefficiency.  One  or  two  more  crimes  of  violence  with 
well-known  people  as  victims  will  fire  the  public  indignation  of 
San  Francisco  to  a  point  where  incapable  officers  will  be  forced 
aside  and  an  authority  created  to  meet  the  grave  emergency  con- 
fronting respectable  citizenry." 

The  Stockton  Independent  went  even  further.  Said  that  paper 
of  the  San  Francisco  situation: 

"Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  of  San  Francisco  declares  there  shall 
be  no  vigilance  committee  and  no  lynching  in  San  Francisco.  If 
lie  and  the  police  are  unable  to  prevent  daily  murders,  or  attempted 
murders,  by  single  criminals,  how  can  he  prevent  good  citizens  in 
liundreds  of  thousands  from  lynching  those  criminals  if  they  catch 
them?  Perhaps  some  of  the  purblind  members  of  the  police  force 
may  be  among  the  first  to  be  lynched." 

73  After  Ruef's  capture  of  the  Union  Square  meeting,  Rev.  P. 
C.  Macfarlane,  pastor  of  the  First  Christian  Church  at  Alameda. 
said  in  a  sermon  (October  21,  1906)  of  the  San  Francisco  situation: 

"Let  a  few  resolute,  clean-handed  business  men  of  San  Fran- 
cisco who  are  not  cowards,  who  are  not  quitters  or  grafters,  get 
together  and  make  a  purse  of  twenty,  fifty  or  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  then  employ  the  ablest  attorney  to  be  had  and  set  quietly 
to  work  to  find  the  graft  and  pimish  the  grafters.  They  could 
make  chapel  exercises  on  Sunday  afternoon  in  San  Quentin  look 
like  a  political  rally  in   San  Francisco  inside  of  two  years. 

"Thus  Eugene  E.  Schmltz  stands  before  the  world  as  a  man  who 
tried  to  reform  and  could  not.  He  is  a  moral  inebriate.  He  is  a 
welcher.  He  is  a  wanderer  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  a  man  with- 
out country,  expatriated  by  his  own  cowardice.     This  is  Dr.  Jekyll. 

"But  there  are  some  who  see  in  Schmltz  Mr.   Hyde.     These  do 


70  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

The  first  serious  attempt  to  oust  Ruef  from  his  dictator- 
ship had  failed. 

But  while  the  protestants  against  prevailing  condi- 
tions were  hot  with  the  disappointments  of  this  failure. 
District  Attorney  Langdon  issued  a  statement  that  he 
had  determined  to  seize  the  opportunity  presented  by 
the  impanelment  of  a  new  Grand  Jury  to  inaugurate  a 
systematic  and  thorough  investigation  into  charges  of 
official  graft  and  malfeasance  in  office.  To  assist  in 
this  work,  he  announced.  Francis  J.  Heney  had  been 
requested  to  become  a  regular  deputy  in  the  District 
Attorney's  office,  and  had  accepted.  That  the  investi- 
gation might  not  be  handicapped  by  lack  of  funds,  Mr. 
Langdon  stated  Rudolph  Spreckels  had  guaranteed  that 
he  would  personally  undertake  the  collection  from  pub- 
lic-spirited citizens  of  a  fund  to  provide  for  the  expenses 
necessary  to  make  the  investigation  thorough.'^*  It  be- 
not  give  the  Mayor  credit  for  even  a  spasm  of  virtue  and  say  tliat 
the  great  work  of  the  morning  of  April  18  was  done  by  General 
Funston  and  prominent  citizens  of  tlieir  own  volition.  These  peo- 
ple say  that  he  has  now  gone  from  San  Francisco,  taking  with  him 
vast  sums  of  money  gained  through  the  granting  of  the  trolley 
franchise,  plotted  even  while  the  embers  smoldered,  and  that  he 
will  never  return. 

"The  United  Railroads  is  universally  believed  to  have  acquired 
its  trolley  franchises  by  corrupt  means.  It  is  said  that  prominent 
merchants  will  crane  and  crook  and  bow  and  scrape  to  get  a  nod 
of  recognition  from  Abe  Ruef.  Ruef  has  used  the  advantages  given 
him  by  the  state  of  affairs  to  corrupt  the  greatest  city  in  Califor- 
nia. Ruef  owns  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  The  Police  Commission- 
ers belong  to  him.  The  saloon-keeper  who  wants  a  license,  a  cor- 
poration that  wants  a  favor  from  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  has 
only  to  retain  Ruef  as  an  attorney  at  a  fee  sufficiently  large." 

Dr.  Macfarlane  gave  expression  to  what  many  thoughtful  men 
were  thinking,  but  of  which  few  with  interests  at  San  Francisco 
dared  to  admit  openly. 

7*  Mr.  Langdon's  statement  was  published  October  21,  1906.  It 
was  in  full  as  follows: 

"In  view  of  the  present  extraordinary  conditions  prevalent  in  the 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  the  unusual  increase  in  crime, 
which  threatens  to  grow  worse  as  the  winter  sets  in,  and  in  view 
of  the  numerous  charges  of  official  graft  and  malfeasance  in  office, 
I  have  determined  to  seize  the  opportunity  presented,  by  the  im- 
panelment of  a  new  grand  jury,  which  has  been  set  down  for  next 


San  Francisco  After  the  Fire  71 

came  known  that  William  J.  Burns,  who  had  been 
associated  with  Heney  in  the  Oregon  land-fraud  cases, 
had  been  retained  to  direct  the  investigation,  and  that 
for  several  months  his  agents  had  been  quietly  at  work. 
The  effect   of  these   announcements   was   immediate. 


Wednesday  by  Hon.  Tlionias  F.  Graham,  the  Presiding^  .Judge  of  the 
Superior  Court  in  tlie  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  to  inau- 
gurate a  systematic  and  thorough  investigation  into  these  condi- 
tions. It  is  my  official  duty  to  do  so,  and  in  pursuance  of  that  duty 
and  in  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  task,  I  liave  decided  to  seek 
the  best  assistance  obtainable.  It  is  my  purpose  to  set  at  rest 
these  charges  of  official  graft  by  either  proving  thein  false  or  con- 
victing those  who  are  guilty.  If  the  charges  be  untrue,  their  falsity 
should  be  demonstrated  to  the  world,  so  as  to  remove  the  impres- 
sions which  have  been  circulated  to  the  injury  of  tlie  credit  and 
fair  jiame  of  the  city.  If  they  be  true  we  should  show  to  the  coun- 
try that  tliere  is  enough  strength,  virtue  and  civic  pride  in  our 
people  to  enable  the  regularly  constituted  ma'^liinery  of  justice  to 
re-establish  conditions  on  a  clean,  righteous  and  just  basis,  without 
resort  to  any  extraordinary  expedients  outside  the  law.  This  is  to 
be  an  honest,  fair,  thorough  and  searching  investigation.  We  shall 
protect  no  man.  We  shall  persecute  no  man.  but  we  shall  prose- 
cute evei-y  man  who  is  guilty,  i-egardless  of  position  or  standing  in 
tlic  city.  In  order  that  we  may  have  the  benefit  of  expert  services 
hi  this  work  I  have  requested  Mr.  Francis  J.  Heney.  who  has  won 
national  fame  for  his  work  in  the  prosecution  of  the  Oregon  land 
fraud  cases,  to  become  a  regular  deputy  in  my  office.  Mr.  Heney 
has  accepted.  It  is  unfortunate  that  this  work  should  be  com- 
menced during  a  political  campaign,  but  the  conditions  in  San 
Francisco  to-day  require  that  radical  action  be  taken  at  once,  and 
though  I  may  be  charged  with  instituting  this  investigation  at  this 
particular  juncture  for  political  advantage.  I  must  ask  the  public 
to  judge  me  I)y  the  results  attained,  which  will  be  the  best  answer. 
"I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  great  difficulties  involved  in  this 
investigation.  It  will  be  both  laliorious  and  costly.  The  money 
available  under  tlie  appropriations  made  to  the  District  Attorney's 
office  and  tlie  grand  jury  is.  of  course,  utterly  inadequate.  Often 
previous  investigations  by  other  grand  juries  have  been  made  abor- 
tive because  of  this  lack  of  necessary  funds  to  meet  expenses.  In 
the  present  instance  we  shall  not  suffer  this  severe  handicap.  I  am 
authorized  to  announce  that  Mr.  Rudolpli  Spreckels  has  guaranteed 
that  he  will  personally  undertake  the  collection  from  public-spirited 
citizens  of  a  fund  to  provide  for  the  expenses  necessary  to  make 
the  investigation  thorough  and  so  that  good  results  may  ensue. 
The  city  is  in  deep  affliction  'Consequent  upon  the  dreadful  calami- 
ties of  last  spring;  it  is  in  danger  from  certainly  increasing  inva- 
sion of  desperate  criminals  from  all  over  the  world;  some  of  the 
public  departments  are  undoubtedly  in  bad  hands,  and  I  appeal  to 
my  fellow-citizens  to  give  this  investigation  their  moral  support, 
so  that  the  innocent  may  be  protected,  so  that  the  guilty  may  be 
punished,  and  so  that  San  Francisco  may  be  helped  to  her  feet  and 
started  again  on  the  high  road  of  prosperity  in  her  material  condi- 
tions, and  have  restored  decency,  efficiency,  honesty  and  honor  in 
her  public  affairs. 

"W[I.I.T.\M   H.    LAXODON.   District   Attornev." 


72  San  Francisco  After  the  Fire 

All  talk  of  "vigilante  committee"  and  "lynching"  ceased. 
The  case  of  The  People  of  San  Francisco  vs.  the 
Schmitz-Ruef  Administration  was  to  be  presented  in 
an  orderly  way  in  the  courts. 

And  the  united  press  of  San  Francisco,  legitimate 
business  interests,  and  a  great  majority  of  the  people 
welcomed  the  alternative. 


CHAPTER  V. 
Graft  Prosecution  Opens. 

Three  days  after  the  announcement  of  his  plans, 
District  Attorney  Langdon  appointed  Heney  to  a  regu- 
lar deputyship.  But  even  before  Langdon  had  taken 
office,  as  early  as  December,  1905,  Fremont  Older, 
editor  of  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin,  had  suggested  to 
Heney  that  he  undertake  the  prosecution  of  those  re- 
sponsible for  conditions  in  San   Francisco. 

The  Bulletin  had  been  the  most  fearless  and  con- 
sistent of  the  opponents  of  the  Schmitz-Ruef  regime.''^ 
After  Ruef's  complete  triumph  at  the  November  elec- 
tion in  1905,  he  boasted  that  he  would  break  the  Bulletin 
with  libel  suits.  With  every  department  of  government 
in  his  control,  Ruef  appeared  to  be  in  a  position  where, 
even  though  he  might  not  be  able  to  make  good  his 
threat,  he  could  cause  the  Bulletin  much  annoyance  if 
not  great  financial  loss. 

Older  went  on  to  Washington  to  engage  Heney  to 

75  The  persecution  of  the  Bulletin  during  this  period  was  char- 
acteristic of  Ruef's  methods  and  reflected  the  state  of  lawlessness 
which  prevailed  in  San  Francisco.  R.  A.  Crothers,  proprietor  of 
the  paper,  was  assaulted  and  badly  beaten.  The  newsboys  organ- 
ized into  a  union.  The  boys  were  sincere  enough,  but  the  move- 
ment was  in  reality  engineered  from  the  tenderloin.  Soon  a  strike 
of  newsboys  against  the  Bulletin  was  inaugurated.  Copies  of  the 
paper  were  snatched  from  the  hands  of  citizens  who  purchased  it. 
Bulletin  carrier.*!  and  agents  were  assaulted.  Tugs  of  its  delivery 
wagons  were  cut.  When  the  paper  was  delivered  to  stores,  sticks 
and  stones  were  thrown  in  after  it.  The  police  did  not  interfere. 
The  manifestations  of  lawlessness  went  unchecked.  Libel  suits 
were  brought  against  the  Bultetin.  Business  boycotts  were  at- 
tempted  against    It. 


74  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

defend  the  paper,  should  Rnef  attempt  to  make  his 
boast  good.  Heney  gave  Ruef's  threats  little  credence. 
"I  would  be  very  glad  to  defend  you,"  he  told  Older, 
"but  I  am  afraid  I'll  never  get  a  chance  to  earn  that 
fee."  ^« 

Incidentally  Older  stated  that  he  believed  a  fund 
could  be  raised  to  prosecute  the  corrupters  of  the  San 
I'^^ancisco  municipal  government,  and  asked  Heney  if 
he  would  undertake  the  prosecution,  if  such  a  fund 
could  be  secured. 

Heney  replied  that  he  wcnild  be  glad  to  undertake 
it.  but  stated  that  at  least  $100,000  would  be  required. 
And  even  with  this  amount.  Heney  pointed  out  to  Older, 
all  efforts  would  be  futile,  unless  the  District  Attorney 
were  genuinely  in  sympathy  with  the  movement  to 
better  conditions. 

On  Heney 's  return  to  California  early  in  1906, 
Older  brought  him  and  Rudolph  Spreckels  '^^  and  James 

"8  See  address  made  by  Heney  before  Citizens'  League  of  .Tus- 
tice  in  October.  1908. 

77  Rudolpli  Spreckels,  altliough  connected  witli  large  enterprises, 
had  steadfastly  refused  to  employ  Ruef  as  an  attorney,  or  to  .loin 
witli  him  in  any  way.  Given  control  of  the  San  Francisco  Gas 
Company,  for  example,  although  he  was  importuned  to  do  so, 
Spreckels  refu.«ed  to  employ  Ruef  as  attorney  for  that  company. 
Spreckels  testified  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun, 
that  he  had  first  realized  the  necessity  of  proceeding  against  Ruef 
and  the  Ruef-Schmitz  administration  when  Ruef  proposed  to  him 
to  organize  a  syndicate  to  purchase  San  Francisco  municipal  bonds. 
Spreckels  testified  that  Ruef  set  forth  his   plan  as  follows: 

"He  (Ruef)  asked  me  if  I  would  get  together  a  syndicate  for  the 
pui-pose  of  bidding  on  these  bonds;  that  he  would  guarantee  that  if 
I  did  get  up  such  a  syndicate,  our  bid  would  be  a  successful  bid; 
that  we  would  not  be  obliged  to  bid  above  par,  and  that  he  would 
guarantee  that  we  would  be  the  successful  bidders.  My  reply  to 
Mr.  Ruef  was  that  I  could  not  understand  how  anybody  could  make 
such  an  agreement  or  promise,  and  how  did  he  propose  to  make 
such  a  statement— to  carry  out  what  he  had  stated.  He  said: 
'Why,  that  is  a  simple  matter.  You  know  my  connection  v.'ith  the 
T.abor  Unions  and  the  I..abor  Union  party.  Just  at  the  time  that  the 
bids  are  about  to  come  in,  T  will  arrange  to  tie  up  this  town;  we 
will   have    the   biggest   strike   that   the   community   has  ever  known. 


Graft  Prosecution  Opens  75 

D.  Phelan  together.  Heney  and  Spreckels  met  for  the 
first  time.  Phelan  vouched  for  Langdon's  ^*  integrity 
and  honesty  of  purpose.  Indeed,  Langdon  was  already 
giving  evidence  of  his  independence  of  the  Ruef  organ- 
ization. Up  to  that  time  no  attempt  had  been  made  to 
raise  the  funds  necessary  to  conduct  a  practical  investi- 
gation. Phelan  stated  that  he  would  subscribe  $10,000 
and  Spreckels  agreed  to  give  a  like  amount.  Spreckels 
undertook  to  look  the  field  over  and  expressed  confi- 
dence that  he  could  get  twenty  men  who  would  sub- 
scribe $5000  each,  making  the  $100,000  which  Heney 
had  declared  to  be  necessary  for  the  undertaking.  The 
question   of  Heney's   fee  was   then  raised. '^^ 

and  I  would  like  to  see  any  of  your  bankers  or  your  capitalistic 
friends  bid  on  the  bonds  under  those  circumstances,  excepting 
yourself,  those  that  are  in  the  know' — words  to  that  effect,  was 
his  expression.  I  said  to  Mr.  Ruef:  'Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr. 
Ruef,  that  for  the  purpose  of  making  money  you  would  bring  about 
a  strike  whicli  might  entail  even  bloodshed,  for  the  mere  sake  of 
making  money?'  And  Mr.  Ruef  flushed  up  and  said:  'Oh,  no;  I 
was  only  joking.'     And  he  soon  withdrew  from  my  offlce." 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  Spreckels'  attitude  toward  Ruof 
with  that  of  I.  W.  Hellman,  as  shown  by  Hellman's  testimony  at 
the  trial  of  Tirey  L.  Ford.     See  footnote  7,  page  15. 

78  Heney.  in  his  address  on  the  work  of  the  Graft  Prosecution, 
October,  1908,  paid  Langdon  the  following  high  tribute: 

"Mr.  Langdon,  as  soon  as  we  laid  the  matter  before  him  and 
convinced  him  it  was  in  good  faith  and  not  to  serve  private  inter- 
ests, said:  'Yes.  I  will  appoint  Mr.  Heney  assistant  in  my  offlce 
and  give  him  full  sway  to  make  a  thorough  investigation,  on  one 
<ondition,  and  that  is  that  I  am  kept  personally  in  touch  witli 
everything  going  on  at  all  times.  I  am  District  Attorney  and  I 
propose  to  be  District  -\ttorney  and  to  act  upon  my  own  .iudgment.' 
.\nd  there  never  has  been  a  time  that  Mr.  Langdon  didn't  have  ab- 
solute sway  over  all  matters,  and  did  not  wholly  consent  to  what 
was  done,  and  he  has  had  the  final  say  in  everything,  and  I  wish 
to  say  that  there  is  more  credit  due  to  him  than  to  any  of  us.  He 
had  a  greater  personal  sacrifice  to  make. 

"The  first  thing  he  had  to  take  into  consideration  was  that  he 
had  gone  into  offlce  as  the  candidate  of  the  Ivabor  party,  and  he 
knew  he  wo\ild  be  called  a  traitor  and  denounced  if  It  appeared 
that  any  man  who  had  been  on  the  same  ticket  as  he  had  been 
elected  upon  had  been  gi-afting.  He  had  to  possess  more  moral 
than  physical  courage,  and  a  higher  kind  of  moral  courage,  and 
that  courage  was  exercised  to  the  i^redlt  of  San  Francisco  as  well 
^•■^  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Langdon." 

T'-i  'I'h"  draft  Defense  labored  without  siKcess  to  make  it  appear 


76  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

"If  there  be  anything  left  out  of  the  $100,000  we 
will  talk  about  fee,"  Heney  replied.  "But  I  don't  think 
there  will  be  anything  left  and  I  will  put  up  my  time 
against  your  money." 

It  was  practically  settled  at  this  meeting  that  Heney 
should  devote  himself  to  the  prosecution  of  corrup- 
tionists  against  whom  evidence  might  be  secured.  He 
returned  to  Washington  early  in  March  to  wind  up  his 
affairs  there.  Before  he  could  return  to  San  Francisco, 
came  the  earthquake  and  fire. 

Heney  got  back  to  San  Francisco  April  25,  one  week 
after  the  disaster.  He  had  another  conference  with 
Spreckels.*°  Spreckels  told  him  that  he  wanted  the 
investigation  begun  at  the  earliest  possible  moment,  and 
that  he  (Spreckels)  would  himself  guarantee  the  ex- 
penses   which    might    be    incurred. ^^      Heney    notified 

that  Heney  was  compensated  for  his  service.  Out  of  the  Prosecu- 
tion fund,  the  expenses — rental,  clerical  hire,  etc. — of  offices,  so  far 
as  they  were  maintained  especially  for  the  work  of  the  Graft  Pros- 
ecution, were  paid.  These  were  known  as  "Heney's  ofHces."  When 
Rudolph  Spreckels  was  on  the  stand  at  the  Calhoun  trial,  he  testi- 
fied under  Heney's  announcement  that  the  Defense  could  ask  him 
any  question  it  chose  and  no  objection  would  be  made.  Earl 
Rogers,  for  Calhoun,  endeavored  to  make  it  appear  that  Heney  was 
getting  pay. 

"Mr.  Spreckels."  Rogers  asked,  "in  addition  to  paying  Mr. 
'  Heney's  office  expenses,  amounting  to  five  or  six  hundred  dollars 
a  month,   have  you  paid  other  expenses  for  Mr.   Heney?" 

"No,  sir,"  Spreckels  replied. 

Heney,  the  testimony  all  through  shows,  received  not  a  dollar 
to  compensate  him  for  his  sei-vices  to  the  city;  moreover,  it  shows 
that  he  had  given  up  business  which  would  have  brought  him  large 
fees,  that  he  might  be  free  to  conduct  the  Graft  Prosecution.  See 
transcript  Calhoun  trial,  pages  3837  and  on,  3746,  3743,  etc. 

The  efforts  of  well-compensated  attorneys  for  the  Defense  to 
make  it  appear  that  Heney  was  paid  for  his  work,  furnish  one  of 
the  amusing  features  of  the  graft  trials. 

80  The  conference  was  held  on  May  10  or  11.  This  was  four 
days  before  the  Supervisors  toolc  the  preliminary  steps  toward 
granting  the  United  Railroads  its  overhead  trolley  permit,  and  sev- 
eral  months  before   the  bribe  money  was  paid. 

81  See  testimony  of  Rudolph  Spreckels  at  trial  of  The  People 
vs.   Patiick  Callioun,   No.   1430. 


Graft  Prosecution  Opens  77 

Ihinis,  and  as  early  as  June  ^'' Burns  had  bej^nui  the 
investigation  that  was  to  result  in  the  downfall  of  Ruef, 
and  the  scattering  of  his  forces. 

By  the  middle  of  the  following  October,  Heney  had 
so  arranged  his  affairs  as  to  be  free  to  devote  himself 
to  the  San  Francisco  investigation.  His  appointment  as 
Deputy  District  Attorney  followed. 

In  view  of  one  of  the  principal  defenses  advanced 
by  Ruef  and  his  allies,  namely,  that  the  graft  prosecu- 
tion \vas  undertaken  to  injure  the  United  Railroads, 
these  dates  are  important.  The  services  for  which  the 
bribe  money  which  got  the  United  Railroads  into  diffi- 
culties was  paid,  were  not  rendered  until  May  21,  1906. 
long  after  final  arrangements  had  been  made  for  Burns 
to  conduct  the  investigation  and  Heney  to  assist  in  the 
prosecution.  The  actual  passing  of  the  United  Rail- 
roads bribe  money  was  not  completed  until  late  in 
August  ^^  of  that  year.     Burns  was  at  work,  and  had 


82  Al  McKinley  was  the  first  detective  put  to  work  for  the  Graft 
Prosecution.  On  May  25,  190G,  Chief  Burns  detailed  him  to  watch 
Ruef.  I^ater,  June  19,  1906,  Burns  directed  Robert  Perry  to  shadow 
Ruef.  Perry  did  so  until  nearly  a  year  later,  when  Ruef  was  placed 
in  the  custody  of  an  elisor. 

8,3  That  prosecution  of  officials  of  the  United  Railroads  was  not 
thought  of  when  the  graft  prosecution  was  besun,  was  brought  out 
at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun,  No.  1436.  The  fol- 
lowing, for  example,  is  taken  from  Rudolph  Spreckels'  testimony: 

"Mr.  Heney — Q.  At  the  time  that  Mr.  Phelan  agreed  to  con- 
tribute the  .flO.OOO,  Mr.  Spreckels,  what  did  you  say,  if  anything, 
aVjout  contributing  yourself?  A.  That  was  in  the  first  meeting,  I 
think,  Mr.  Heney.  and  I  told  him  that  I  was  ready  and  willing  to 
contribute  a  similar  amount;  that  [  believed  it  would  be  possible  to 
get  others  to  join  and  contribute. 

"Q.  At  that  time  was  anything  said  by  any  person  about  prose- 
cuting Mr.  Calhoun?     A.    Absolutely  no. 

"Q.  Or  any  person  connected  with  the  United  Railroads  Com- 
pany? A.  The  discussion  was  entirely  confined  to  the  administra- 
tion,  the  corrupt  administration  as  we  termed  it. 

"Q.  At  that  time  did  you  have  any  purpose  or  intention  of 
prosecuting  Mr.  Calhoun?    A.    I  had  not. 

"Q.     Did   you   have   any   reason    to   believe   that   Mr.    Calhoun   at 


78  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

received  pay  for  his  services  before  the  bribe-giving 
for  which  United  Raih-oad  officials  were  prosecuted  had 
taken  place.®'* 

Langdon's  announcement  that  he  would  appoint 
Heney  as  a  Deputy  District  Attorney,  to  assist  in  in- 
vestigating into  charges  of  official  corruption,  brought 
upon  him  the  condemnation  of  the  municipal  administra- 
tion and  of  the  leaders  of  the  Union-Labor  party.  P.  H. 
McCarthy  and  O.  A.  Tveitmoe,  who,  from  opposing  the 
Union-Labor  party  movement  in  1901-3  had,  by  the 
time  the  Graft  Prosecution  opened,  become  prominent 
in  its  councils,  were  particularly  bitter  in  their  denun- 
ciations. At  a  Ruef-planned  mass  meeting  held  at  the 
largest  auditorium  in  the  city  October  31,  1906,  for  the 
purpose  of  organizing  a  league  for  the  protection  of  the 
administration,  Langdon  was  dubbed  "traitor  to  his 
party,"  a  man  "who  has  gone  back  on  his  friends," 
"the  Benedict  Arnold  of  San  Francisco." 


that  time  had  committed  any  crime?  A.  I  had  no  indication  of 
such  a  crime. 

"Mr.  Moore— Was  tliat  time  fixed,  Mr.  Heney? 

"Mr.  Heney — Yes,  it  was  fixed;  the  first  conversation,  and  he 
has  fixed  it  as  nearly  as  he  could. 

"The  Court — Have  you  in  mind  the  testimony  on  that  point,  Mr. 
Moore?  There  was  some  reference  to  it  in  an  earlier  part  of  the 
examination. 

"Mr.  Heney — Q.  When  j'ou  had  the  talk  with  Mr.  Heney  in 
April,  1906,  did  you  say  anythin,<  about  prosecuting  Mr.  Calhoun, 
or  anybody  connected  with  the  I'nited  Railroads?     A.    I  did  not. 

"Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  tel'.  Mr.  Heney  that  you  desired  to 
have  him  prosecute  Mr.  Patrick  Calhoun?  A.  I  did  not,  at  any 
time. 

"Q.  Did  you  tell  him  at  any  time  that  you  desired  to  have  hun 
prosecute  any  person  connected  with  the  United  Railroads  Com- 
pany? A.  I  did  not."  See  tran.icript  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Cal- 
houn. No.  1436,  page  3730. 

84  Rudolph  Spreckels  testified  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Pat- 
rick Calhoun,  No.  1436: 

"Mr.  Perry  was  employed  to  get  information  in  regard  to  Mr. 
Abraham  Ruef  and  the  city  administi-ation  as  early  as  June,  1906, 
and  his  efforts  and  of  one  other  man  employed  at  that  time  were 
directed  toward  that  and  that  only." 


Graft  Prosecution  Opens  79 

Heney  was  denounced  as  "the  man  from  Arizona." 
On  the  other  hand  Mayor  Schmitz  was  called  "the 
peerless  champion  of  the  people's  rights,"  and  Ruef, 
"the   Mayor's  loyal,   able  and  intrepid  friend." 

Thomas  Egan,  one  of  the  organizers  of  the  Union- 
Labor  party,  stated  of  the  graft  prosecution :  "This 
movement,  led  by  Rudolph  Spreckels  and  engineered  by 
lames  D.  Phelan,  conceived  in  iniquity  and  born  in 
shame,  is  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  labor  organ- 
izations and  again  to  gain  control  of  the  government 
of  our  fair  city." 

Ruef,  in  an  earnest  address,  insisted  upon  his  inno- 
cence of  wrongdoing".  "As  sure  as  there  is  a  God  in 
heaven,"  he  announced  solemnly,  "they  have  no  proof 
as  they  claim."  ®^ 

Acting  ]\Iayor  Gallagher  issued  a  statement  in  which 
he  took  the  same  ground  as  had  Egan  at  the  Dreamland 
Rink  mass  meeting,  that  the  prosecution  was  a  move- 
ment on  the  part  of  the  Citizens"  Alliance  to  disrupt  the 
labor  unions.**" 

85  See  San  Francisco  new-spapers.   Noveml^er  1,  190C. 

HO  Gallagher's  statement  was  in  full  as  follows: 
"It  seems  to  me  that  these  assaults  that  are  being  made  upon 
Mayor  Schmitz  are  exceedingly  reprehensible.  It  is  strange  that 
the  gentlemen  who  are  making  the  attacks  did  not  see  fit  to  make 
them  while  Mayor  Schmitz  was  here.  Especially  does  this  apply 
to  Langdon,  who,  by  reason  of  past  association  with  Mayor  Schmitz. 
and  favors  received  by  him  from  the  Mayor,  should  have  been  the 
last  man  to  attempt  to  besmirch  tlie  Mayor  in  his  absence.  I  am 
satisfied  that  all  these  attacks  upon  the  administration  officials 
have  their  origin  in  the  long-continued  attempt  on  behalf  of  the 
Citizens'  Alliance  to  disrupt  the  labor  organizations  of  the  city. 
An  administration  that  is  friendly  to  oiganized  labor  is  an  impass- 
able obstacle  in  the  way  of  such  a  purpose.  The  enormous  amount 
of  labor  of  all  kinds  that  will  have  to  be  performed  in  this  city 
during  the  next  few  years  has  undoubtedly  prompted  the  organizers 
of  the  old  Citizens'  Alliance  to  renew  their  assaults  upon  the  offi- 
cials elected  by  the  Union  I>abor  party  in  the  hope  that  they  may 
thereby   themselves  secure   control  of   the   municipal   administration 


8o  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

From  another  angle,  officials  of  public  service  cor- 
porations charged  those  identified  with  the  investigation 
with  being  in  league  with  the  labor  unions.  In  one  of 
his  statements  to  the  public,  Patrick  Calhoun,  president 
of  the  United  Railroads,  set  forth  that,  "I  confidently 
expect  to  defeat  alike  the  machinations  of  Rudolph 
Spreckels,  his  private  prosecutor,  with  his  corps  of  hired 
detectives,  and  Mr.  Cornelius,  president  of  the  Carmen's 
Union,  the  leader  of  anarchy  and  lawlessness,  and  to  see 
fairly  established  in  this  community  the  principles  of 
American  liberty,  and  the  triumphs  of  truth  and  jus- 
tice." ^^ 

Then,  too,  there  were  points  at  which  the  two  sup- 
posed extremes,  corporation  magnates  and  Labor-Union 
politicians,  touched  in  their  opposition  to  the  prosecu- 
tion. At  a  meeting  held  on  November  2,  1906,  less 
than  two  weeks  after  Heney's  appointment,  John  E. 
Bennett,  representing  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company, 
read  a  paper  in  which  Heney  and  Langdon  were  de- 
nounced as  the  agents  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water 
Company.  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  November  3, 
charged  that  the  paper  read  by  Mr.  Bennett  was  type 

and  thus  work  out  their  own  will  in  the  matter  of  the  conditions 
under  which  lahor  shall  perform  the  task  of  rebuilding  this  city. 

"So  far  as  I  am  concerned  personally,  I  consider  that  the  dis- 
ruption of  the  labor  organization  would  be  a  great  sacrifice  of  the 
interests  of  all  of  the  people.  The  city  must  be  built  up;  but  the 
Citizens'  Alliance  and  all  organizations  and  individuals  in  sympathy 
with  it  may  as  well  understand,  first  as  last,  that  the  work  will 
only  be  done  through  organized  labor,  and  not  by  the  employment 
of  pauper  labor  in  competition  with  the  mechanics  and  artisans  of 
the  labor  unions. 

"That  this  view  of  the  situation  is  well  recognized  by  the  labor 
organizations  of  the  city  is  shown  by  the  action  of  the  Building 
Trades  Council  last  night  in  approving  and  indorsing  my  action  in 
removing  Mr.  Langdon." 

87  Contained  in  a  statement  published  May  18,  1907.  See  San 
Francisco  papers  of  that  date. 


Graft  Prosecution  Opens  8i 

proof  of  a  pamphlet  that  was  to  be  widely  distributed, 
and  that  the  proof  sheets  had  been  taken  to  the  meeting 
by  George  B.  Keane,  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors.*^ 

On  the  other  hand,  practically  the  entire  press  of 
the   city,^^   the   general   public   and   many   of   the   labor 

88  The  nature  of  the  attacks  upon  the  supporters  of  the  Prosecu- 
tion is  shown  by  the  proceedings  in  the  libel  suit  brought  by  the 
San  Francisco  First  National  Bank  against  the  Oakland  Tribune. 
Rudolph  Spreckels  was  president  of  the  bank;  the  Tribune  was  one 
of  the  stanchest  of  the  opponents  of  the  prosecution.  The  Tribune 
charged  that  the  Graft  Prosecution  had  for  one  of  its  objects  the 
unloading  of  the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company's  plant  upon  San 
Francisco,  and  that  the  First  National  Bank  was  burdened  with 
Spring  Valley  securities.    Among  other  things  the  article  set  forth: 

"The  recent  disclosures  of  the  methods  by  which  it  was  sought 
to  unload  Spring  Valley's  old  junk,  called  a  distributing  system, 
together  with  its  inadequate  supply  of  inferior  water,  on  the  city 
at  an  outrageous  figure  by  the  swinging  of  the  'big  stick'  has  not 
enhanced  the  value  of  the  securities  of  the  corporation  in  the  view 
of  the  national  examiners.  Even  the  efforts  to  cloud  the  real  pur- 
poses of  the  promoters  of  the  Spring  Valley  job  by  calling  it  a  civic 
uprising  to  stamp  out  municipal  graft  is  said  to  have  failed  to  mis- 
lead the  Federal  experts.  The  suggestion  that  the  'big  stick'  would 
force  the  city  to  purchase  the  plant  of  the  decrepit  corporation  for 
$28,000,000  after  its  real  estimate  was  appraised  by  an  expert  at 
$5,000,000  and  held  by  the  bondholders  to  be  worth,  as  realty  specu- 
lation, $15,000,000,  has  not  enthused  the  Federal  bank  examiners  in 
relation  to  the  value  of  Spring  Valley  bonds  as  security  for  a 
national  bank." 

The  First  National  Bank  did  not  hold  Spring  Valley  Company 
securities.  As  the  Tribune's  charges  were  calculated  to  injure  the 
bank,  action  for  libel  followed.  At  the  hearings,  it  developed  that 
the  articles  had  been  furnished  the  Tribune  by  the  political  editor 
of  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  who  testified  that  he  was  paid  fifty 
dollars  a  week  for  his  Tribune  articles.  This  was  more  than  his 
salary  as  political  editor  of  the  Chronicle.  He  admitted  on  the 
stand  that  he  had  heard  what  he  stated  in  his  article,  "only  as  a 
matter  of  gossip." 

89  The  San  Francisco  Call,  in  an  editorial  article,  printed  October 
22,  expressed  the  general  sentiment  in  San  Fi'ancisco.  The  Call 
said: 

"San  Francisco  wiil  welcome  the  undertaking  by  Mr.  Francis  J. 
Heney  of  the  duty  to  search  out  and  bring  to  justice  the  official 
boodlers  and  their  brokers  that  afflict  the  body  politic.  Public 
opinion  Is  unanimous  in  the  belief  that  Supervisors  have  been  bribed 
and  that  administrative  functions  such  as  those  of  the  Board  of 
Works  and  the  Health  Board  have  been  peddled  In  secret  market. 
Even  the  Board  of  Education  Is  not  exempted  from  suspicion. 

"These  convictions,  prevailing  In  the  public  mind,  call  for  veri- 
fication or  refutation.  The  sudden  affluence  of  certain  members  of 
tlie  Board  of  Supervisors,  the  current  and  generally  credited  reports 
that  the  United  Railroads  paid  upward  of  $500,000  in  bribes  to 
prease  the  way  of  its  overliend  trolley  franchise,   the  appearance  of 


82  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

unions  gave  the  prosecution  unqualified  endorsement, 
welcoming  it  as  opportunity,  in  an  orderly  way,  either 
to  establish  beyond  question,  or  to  disprove,  the  charges 
against  the  administration  of  incompetency  and  cor- 
ruption.^°     Rudolph  Spreckels's  statement,  that  "this  is 

public  officials  in  the  guise  of  capitalists  making  large  investments 
in  skating  rinks  and  other  considerable  enterprises — these  and  other 
lines  of  investigation  demand  the  probe.  If  there  has  been  no  dis- 
honesty in  office  the  officials  should  be  the  first  to  insist  on  a 
thorough  inquiry. 

"If  it  is  true,  as  we  believe,  that  official  boodling  has  been  the 
practice,  a  systematic  inquiry  will  surely  uncover  the  crimes.  It  is 
impossible  to  commit  such  offenses  where  so  many  are  concerned 
without  leaving  some  trace  that  can  be  followed  and  run  to  earth. 
The  crimes  of  the  gaspipe  thugs  seemed  for  the  moment  hidden  in 
impenetrable  mystery,  but  patient  search  discovers  the  trail  that 
leads  to  conviction.  Criminals  are  rarely  men  of  high  intelligence. 
They  betray  themselves  at  one  or  other  turn  of  their  windings. 
We  are  convinced  that  some  of  our  Supervisors  and  not  a  few  of  the 
executive  officials  appointed  by  Schmitz  are  in  no  degree  superior 
in  point  of  intelligence  and  moral  sense  to  the  gaspipe  robbers. 

"Mr.  Heney's  record  as  a  remorseless  and  indefatigable  prose- 
cutor of  official  rascals  is  known.  He  will  have  the  assistance  in 
his  new  work  of  Mr.  William  J.  Burns,  who  did  so  much  to  bring 
to  light  the  Oregon  land  frauds.  Those  crimes  were  surrounded  and 
protected  by  fortifications  of  political  influence  that  were  deemed 
impregnable.  When  the  inquiry  was  first  undertaken  nobody  be- 
lieved it  would  ever  come  to  anything.  It  was  a  slow  business, 
even  as  the  mills  of  the  gods  grind  slowly,  but  if  fine  the  grist 
of  the  criminal  courts  of  Oregon  is  large  and  satisfying. 

"The  people  of  San  Francisco  have  been  sorely  tried.  Fire  and 
earthquake  we  cannot  help,  but  the  unhappy  city  has  been  made 
the  prey  of  a  set  of  conscienceless  thieves  who  have  done  nothing 
since  our  great  calamity  beyond  promoting  schemes  to  fill  their 
own  pockets.  Our  streets,  our  sewers,  our  schools  and  our  public 
buildings  have  been  neglected,  but  the  sale  of  permits  and  fran- 
chises, the  working  of  real  estate  jobs  and  the  market  for  privileges 
of  every  varietj'  have  been  brisk  and  incessant.  Officials  have 
grown  rich:  Some  of  them  are  spending  money  like  a  drunken 
sailor.  It  is  time  for  housecleaning  and  a  day  of  reckoning.  Heney 
and  Burns  will  put  the  question:     'Where  did  they  get  it?'  " 

90  Bishop  Montgomery,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  an 
interview  in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  October  20,  1906,  said  in  ref- 
erence to   the   San  Francisco  graft  prosecution: 

"Mere  accusations  have  been  so  long  and  so  persistently  made 
that  the  public  has  a  right  to  know  the  truth;  and,  above  all,  those 
who  are  innocently  so  charged  have  a  right  to  a  public  and  complete 
vindication.  Nothing  now  but  a  thorough  and  honest  investigation 
can  clear  the  atmosphere  and  set  us  right  before  the  world  and 
with  ourselves. 

"I  have  such  confidence  in  the  courts  of  California  that  I  believe 
no  innocent  man  needs  to  fear  that  he  will  suffer  from  them,  and 
no  guilty  inan  has  any  just  right   to  complain. 

"1  believe  the  investigation  has  been  undertaken  in  good  faith 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  city,  and  that  it  will  be  conducted 
thoroughly  and  honestly." 


Graft  Prosecution  Opens  83 

no  question  of  capital  and  labor,  hut  of  dishonesty  and 
justice,"  •''  was  f^cnerally  accejited  as  true  expression  of 
the  situation. 

Those  directly  connected  with  allegations  or  sug- 
gestion of  irregular  practices,  issued  statements  dis- 
claiming any  knowledge  of  irregularity  or  corruption. 
General  Tirey  L.  Ford,  chief  counsel  of  the  United  Rail- 
roads, in  a  published  interview,^"  stated  that  no  political 
boss  nor  any  person  connected  with  the  municipal  ad- 


91  Mr.  Spreckels'  statement  was  contained  in  an  interview 
printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  October  28,  1906.  It  was  as  fol- 
lows : 

"This  Is  no  question  of  capital  and  labor,"  he  said,  "but  of  dis- 
honesty and  justice.  There  is  no  association  of  men,  capitalists  oi 
others,  behind  what  we  have  undertaken,  and  it  cannot  be  made  a 
class  question.  No  one  knows  that  better  than  Ruef.  And  it  will 
bo  impossible  for  him  to  fool  the  workingman  by  these  insinuations. 

"I  want  the  workingmen  of  this  city  to  recall  that  meeting  which 
was  recently  held  in  Union  Square.  I  was  asked  to  attend  that 
meeting  and  be  its  chairman.  I  refused  to  preside,  to  speak  or  go 
there  unless  I  could  be  assured  that  it  was  not  to  be  a  movement 
of  the  capitalistic  class  on  the  one  hand  against  the  workingmen  on 
the  other.  And  because  I  did  not  receive  that  assurance  I  did  not 
attend.     Mr.  Heney  stayed  away  for  the  same  reason. 

"Xow.  who  was  it  that  originated  that  meeting?  Sam  Short- 
ridge.  Who  was  it  who  drew  the  resolutions;  who  was  it  who 
prompted  the  speakers  and  the  chairman?    It  was  Sam  Shortridge. 

"Mr.  Ruef  says  that  meeting  was  dominated  and  arranged  by  the 
Citizens'  Alliance.  A'ery  well.  Then  let  Mr.  Ruef  explain  to  the 
workingmen  why  it  was  that  a  few  days  afterward  he  hired  Sam 
Shortridge  as  his  attorney. 

"I  believe  that  it  is  impossible  to  fool  the  laboring  men  of  this 
city  now.  Absolutely  and  definitely  I  want  to  say  to  them  that  there 
is  nothing  beliind  this  movement  but  the  desire  for  a  clean  city. 
It  is  absolutely  regardless  of  class.  Every  man  who  owns  a  home, 
who  has  a  family,  is  as  much  interested  in  what  we  have  under- 
taken  as  is  the  wealthiest  citizen." 

'.'2  See  San  Francisco  Examiner.  October  28,  1906,  from  which  the 
following  is  taken:  "Of  course  there  was  no  bribery  (said  General 
Ford),  nor  offer  to  bribe,  nor  was  there  anything  done  except  upon 
clean    and    legitimate    lines." 

"Q.  General,  if  any  bribe,  or  offer  to  bribe,  had  been  made  by 
your  company  to  any  person  connected  with  the  San  Francisco 
nmnicipal  administration,  or  to  any  political  boss  having  control  of 
the  same,  or  if  any  member  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  or  of  the 
municipal  government  had  benefited  to  the  extent  of  one  dollar 
financially  by  the  agreement  to  grant  to  the  United  Railroads  the 
privilege  desired,  you,  in  your  ofificial  capacity,  would  undoubtedly 
be  aware  of  it,  would  you  not?  A.  I  am  certain  that  I  would;  I 
am.  therefore,  equally  certain  that  no  such  thing  was  ever  done  or 
contemplated." 


84  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

ministration  had  benefited  financially  to  the  extent  of 
one  dollar  in  the  trolley  permit  transaction,  and  that 
had  any  one  profited  thereby,  he  (Ford)  in  his  official 
capacity  would  have  known  of  it.  Those  connected 
with  the  administration  were  as  vigorous  in  their  de- 
nials.®^ Many  of  them  expressed  satisfaction  at  the 
prospect  of  an  investigation.  Supervisor  Kelly  went 
so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the  municipality  give  $5000  to 

93  The  following  are  excerpts  from  interviews  published  in  the 
San  Francisco  Examiner,  October  23,  1906: 

Abraham  Ruef :  "I  am  satisfied  that  if  Mayor  Schmitz  had  known 
that  this  investigation  was  afoot  he  would  have  postponed  his  trip 
abroad  and  would  have  remained  here  to  disprove  all  allegations 
of  graft." 

Supervisor  Andrew  Wilson:  "I  shall  be  glad  to  welcome  any  in- 
vestigation as  to  my  official  acts  or  as  to  my  official  conduct.  I 
never  took  a  dishonest  dollar  in  my  life." 

Supervisor  Patrick  McGushin:  "The  more  they  investigate,  the 
better  I  shall  like  it.  I  do  not  believe  Mr.  Heney  has  any  evidence 
of  graft.  Speaking  for  myself,  he  can  investigate  me  or  my  bank 
account  if  he  likes." 

Acting  Mayor  James  L.  Gallagher:  "So  far  as  the  administra- 
tion is  concerned  from  the  statements  I  have  received,  everything 
is  straight.  So  far  as  the  Police  Department  is  concerned  no  one 
can  tell.     I  can  not  tell." 

Supervisor  Jennings  Phillips:  "This  investigation  will  be  a  good 
thing.  There  has  been  so  much  talk  of  graft  and  so  many  accusa- 
tions that  it  all  will  be  settled  once  and  for  all.  If  Mr.  Heney  has 
any  evidence  I  know  nothing  of  its  nature  nor  against  what  part  of 
the  administration  it  is  directed." 

Supervisor  Edward  Walsh:  "As  a  Supervisor  I  have  tried  to  do 
my  best.  I  court  an  investigation.  I  do  not  pay  much  attention  to 
Mr.  Heney's  statements.  I  have  been  here  thirty-seven  years  and 
I  can  hold  up  my  head,  as  can  every  other  member  of  this  Board." 

Supervisor  Michael  Coffey:  "Nothing  would  afford  me  more 
pleasure  than  to  have  them  investigate  my  integrity  and  my  official 
acts.  I  hope  they'll  make  a  full  and  thorough  investigation  and  clear 
us  all  of  the  slurs  that  have  been  cast  upon  us." 

Supervisor  S.  Davis:  "I  think  there  is  nothing  to  this  whole 
thing.  If  Mr.  Heney  can  find  out  anything  let  him  do  it.  It  is  hard 
to  have  insinuations  cast  at  you.  My  personal  connection  with  the 
administration    has   been   straight." 

Supervisor  F.  P.  Nicholas:  "There  has  been  so  much  noise  about 
graft  that  it  will  be  a  good  thing  to  go  thoroughly  into  the  matter. 
Personally  I  court  an  investigation  of  my  official  acts.  If  Mr.  Heney 
has  any  evidence  of  corruption  I  know  nothing  of  it." 

Supervisor  Daniel  Coleman:  "These  loud  cries  of  graft  that  have 
been  current  of  late  will  be  silenced  through  this  investigation.  It 
should  be  thoroughly  gone  into  so  that  the  purity  of  the  adminis- 
tration cannot  hereafter  be  questioned." 

Supervisor  Max  Mamlock:  "I  do  not  think  it  is  worth  my  while 
to  think  about  this  investigation.  I  do  not  see  where  Mr.  Burns  or 
Mr.   Heney  could  get  any  evidence  of  graft." 


Graft  Prosecution  Opens  85 

assist  in  the  inquiry.  "Let  us,"  said  Supervisor  Loner- 
gan,  "get  to  the  bottom  of  this  thing.  These  cracks 
about  graft  have  been  made  right  along,  and  we  should 
have  them  proved  or  disproved  at  once." 

But  in  spite  of  this  brave  front,  the  developments 
of  the  years  of  resistance  of  the  graft  prosecution 
show  the  few  days  following  Heney's  appointment  as 
Assistant  District  Attorney  to  have  been  a  period  of 
intense  anxiety  to  Ruef  and  his  immediate  advisers. 
Ruef  held  daily  consultations  with  Acting  Mayor  Gal- 
lagher, Clerk  Keane.  and  his  attorney.  Henry  Ach. 
The  public  knew  little  of  these  consultations,  but  a 
rumor  became  current  that  Mayor  Gallagher  would  sus- 
pend District  Attorney  Langdon  from  office.  Little 
credence  was  given  this,  however.  Nevertheless,  on  the 
night  of  October  25  Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  suspended 
Langdon  from  office,  and  appointed  A.braham  Ruef  to 
be  District  Attorney  to  conduct  the  graft  investigation.^* 


94  Acting-Mayor  Gallagher's  order  removing  Langdon  is  printed 
in  full  in  the  appendix.  One  of  the  charges  alleged  against 
Langdon  was  that  he  had  appointed  Francis  J.  Heney  to  be  his 
deputy  for  ulterior  purposes.  Of  Heney  it  was  alleged  that  he  had 
"in  a  public  speech  in  said  city  and  county  (San  Francisco), 
aspersed  the  character  and  good  name  of  a  prominent  citizen  of  this 
community  (Abe  Ruef),  and  stated  that  he  knew  him  to  be  cor- 
rupt, etc." 

Acting-Mayor  Gallagher's  order  of  removal  was  made  in  per- 
suance  of  Sections  18  and  19  of  Article  XVI  of  the  San  Francisco 
Charter,  which  read  as  follows: 

"Sec.  18.  Any  elected  officer,  except  Supervisor,  may  be  sus- 
pended by  the  Mayor  and  removed  by  the  Supervisors  for  cause; 
and  any  appointed  officer  may  be  removed  by  the  Mayor  for  cause. 
The  Mayor  shall  appoint  some  person  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the 
office  during  the  period  of  such   suspension. 

"Sec.  19.  When  the  Mayor  shall  suspend  any  elected  officer  he 
shall  Immediately  notify  the  Supervisors  of  such  suspension  and  the 
cause  therefor.  If  the  Board  is  not  in  session,  he  shall  Immediately 
call  a  session  of  the  same  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  provided  by 
ordinance.  The  Mayor  shall  present  written  charges  against  surh 
suspended  officer  to  the  Board  and  furnish  a  copy  of  the  same  to 
said  officer,  who  shall  have  the  right  to  appear  with  counsel  before 
the  Bo.nrd  in  his  defense.     If  liy  an  afflrm.itlve  vote  of  not  li^ss  than 


86  Graft  Prosecution  Opens 

The  following  morning  the  San  Francisco  Call,  under 
a  large  picture  of  Ruef,  ])rintefl  the  words:  "THI.S 
MAN'S  HAND  GRIPS  THE  THROAT  OF  SAN 
FRANCISCO." 


fourteen  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  taken  by  ayes  mid 
noes  and  entered  on  Its  record,  the  a^'tion  of  the  Mayor  is  approved, 
then  the  suspended  ofRcer  shall  thereby  be  removed  from  office; 
but  if  the  action  of  the  Mayor  is  not  so  approved  such  suspended 
«fflcer  shall  be  immediately  reinstated." 


■--.CHAPTER  VI. 

Ruef's  Fight  to  Takk  the  District  Attorney's 
Office. 

The  fmpanelinjT  of  the  Grand  Jury  was  to  have  been 
cc)in])leted  on  Octo1)er  26.  Heney  was  appointed  As- 
sistant District  Attorney  on  October  24.  Riief.  to  secure 
control  of  the  District  Attorney's  office  liefore  the  Grand 
Jury  could  be  sworn,  had  little  time  to  act.  But  he  was 
equal  to  the  emergency.  Gallagher  removed  Langdon 
and  named  Ruef  as  District  Attorney  the  day  after 
Heney 's  appointment  and  the  day  before  the  impaneling 
of  the  Grand  Jury  was  to  have  been  completed. 

Ruef  had,  however,  considered  Langdon's  suspension 
from  the  day  of  the  District  Attorney's  announcement  of 
his  plans  for  investigating  graft  charges.  Gallagher 
te.stified  at  the  graft  trials  that  Ruef  had.  several  days 
before  Langdon's  suspension,  notified  him  it  might  be 
necessary  to  remove  Langdon  from  office.''^  The  Act- 
ing Mavor  expressed  himself  as  ready  to  carry  out 
whatever  Ruef  might   want  done. 

Gallagher  testified   that  the  names   of  several   attor- 


ns Gallagher  testified  at  the  ti'ial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef.  No. 
14.'?7,  to  the  conversation  at  Ruef's  law  offloes  when  Ruef  first 
broached  the  matter  of  Langdon's  removal,  as  follows:  "Tlie  sub- 
stance of  the  conversation  was  that  Mr.  Ruef  stated  that  It  might 
become  necessary  to  remove  Mr.  Langdon  from  the  office  of  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  and  to  appoint  somebody  else.  I  replied  that  that 
was  a  matter  for  liim  to  make  up  his  mind  on;  if  he  determined  it 
bad  to  be  done,  T  would  do  it:  woids  to  tliat  effect,  I  cannot  give 
tlie  exact  language." 


88       Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office 

neys,  including  that  of  Henry  Ach,  Ruef's  attorney  and 
close  associate,  were  canvassed  as  eligible  for  appoint- 
ment as  Langdon's  successor.  Nothing  definite  was 
decided  upon,  however,  until  the  day  that  Langdon's 
position  was  declared  vacant.  On  that  day,  Gallagher 
received  word  from  Ruef  to  call  at  his  ofifice.  There, 
according  to  Gallagher's  statement,  he  found  Thomas 
V.  Gator,  a  member  of  the  municipal  Board  of  Election 
Commissioners.     Henry  Ach  came  in  later. 

Ruef  told  Gallagher  that  he  had  decided  it  was  nec- 
essary to  remove  Langdon,  and  that  he  had  decided  to 
take  the  place  himself.  Gallagher  assured  Ruef  that 
whatever  Ruef  decided  in  the  matter  he,  the  Acting 
Mayor,  would  stand  by.  The  papers  removing  Langdon 
had  already  been  prepared.  Gallagher  read  them  over, 
for  typographical  errors,  he  states  in  his  testimony,  and 
signed  them. 

The  Board  of  Supervisors  was  to  have  met  that  day 
at  2:30  P.  M.  in  regular  weekly  session.  Gallagher,  as 
Acting  Mayor,  was  to  preside.  But  it  was  well  after 
6  P.  M.  when  Gallagher  arrived,  from  Ruef's  ofifice,  at 
the  council  chamber. 

He  appeared  worried  and  disturbed.  The  Supervis- 
ors, who  had  been  waiting  for  him  for  nearly  four 
hours,  were  called  to  order.  The  communication  remov- 
ing Langdon  was  read  and  adopted  without  debate  or 
opposition.®^  Gallagher  then  announced  that  he  had 
appointed  Ruef  to  be  Langdon's  successor. 

36  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  In  Its  Issue  of  October  26,  thus 
describes  tlie  proceedings  attending  Langdon's  removal: 

"Gallagher  took  the  chair  at  6:30  p.  m.  and  there  was  ten  min- 
utes' perfunctory  business. 

"Hl.s    honor    .<;ppirip(l    unen.'iX',     lint    n  f     (he    onrct'iil    pioniptins'    i)f 


Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Ofiice       89 

How  completely  Rnet  dominated  the  municipal  de- 
partments was  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  filed  his  bond, 
his  oath  of  office,  and  his  certificate  of  appointment  at 
the  various  municipal  offices  without  hint  of  what  was 
going"  on  reaching  the  public.  Ruef  had  commanded 
secrecy,  and  secrecy  was  observed.  After  Gallagher 
had  announced  Ruef's  appointment  in  open  meeting  of 
the  Supervisors,  the  filing  of  the  papers  was  made  public. 

Although  the  Supervisors,  in  open  board  meeting, 
endorsed  Gallagher's  action  without  apparent  hesitation, 
nevertheless  the  abler  among  them  did  so  with  misgiv- 
ings. Supervisor  Wilson  went  straight  from  the  meeting 
of  the  board  to  Ruef's  office.  He  told  Ruef  that  in  his 
judgment  a  mistake  had  been  made ;  that  the  papers 
would  call  the  removal  of  Langdon  confession  of  guilt. ^" 


Secretary  Keane,  he  called  for  'communications  from  executive 
officers.' 

"Keane  then  announced,  'From  his  honor,  the  Mayor,'  and  read 
Gallagher's  letter  suspending  District  Attorney  Langdon  'for  neglect 
of  duty'  and  sundry  other  charges. 

"During  the  reading  of  the  long  document  there  was  no  sound 
in  the  hall  save  the  hoarse  voice  of  Secretary  Keane,  and  on  its 
completion  Supervisor  Sanderson  arose. 

"Gallagher  explained  that  Langdon  would  'be  given  an  oppor- 
tunity next  Thursday  afternoon  at  2:.'?0  o'clock  to  appear  before 
the  board  and  defend  himself  against  the  charges.' 

"He  then  recognized  Sanderson,  who  offered  a  motion  accepting 
the  communication  from  the  Mayor  and  directing  that  Langdon  be 
directed  to  appear  to  answer. 

"Supervisor  Wilson  seconded   the   motion. 

"Upon  the  call  for  the  'ayes,'  although  the  Supervisors  usually 
let  silence  indicate  their  consent,  there  was  a  chorus  of  approval, 
and  upon  the  call  for  the  'noes'   there  was  dead  silence. 

"Supervisors  L.  A.  Rea  and  J.  J.   Furey  were  not  present." 

97  At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437,  page  of  Tran- 
script 2654,  Wilson  testified:  "I  told  him  (Ruef)  that  I  thought  it 
was  a  bad  move  at  this  time  and  that  the  papers  in  the  morning 
would  state  it  was  simply  a  confession  of  guilt;  and  I  said  that  I 
had  stood  there  and  taken  my  program  on  the  matter,  but  I  felt  it 
would  ruin  my  chances  in  the  face  of  an  election,  running  for  Rail- 
road Commissioner,  and  he  said  I  would  feel  better  after  I  had 
something  to  eat,  and  we  went  over  to  Tait's  and  had  supper.  On 
the  way  over  he  (Ruef)  sent  Charlie  Hagerty  in  to  notify  Mr. 
Heney  of  his  removal." 


90       Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office 

But  Rnef  laughed  at  his  fears,  and  to  cheer  him  up. 
took  him  to  a  popular  restaurant  for  dinner. 

But  before  leaving  his  ofifice.  Ruef  performed  his 
first  act  as  District  Attorney.  He  wrote  a  curt  note  to 
Heney,  dismissing  him  from  the  position  of  assistant.®^ 
Later  in  the  evening  he  appointed  as  Heney's  successor 
Marshall  B.  Woodworth, 

The  order  of  dismissal  was  delivered  to  Heney 
within  ten  minutes.  Heney's  answer  reached  Ruef  as  he 
sat  at  dinner  with  Supervisor  Wilson  and  Henry  Ach, 
who  had  joined  the  group.  Heney's  reply  was  quite  as 
pointed  as  Ruef's  letter  of  dismissal.  Heney  stated  he 
did  not  recognize  Ruef  as  District  Attorney. 

The  battle  between  the  two  forces  was  fairly  on. 
Ruef  and  his  associates,  as  they  sat  at  dinner,  discussed 
the  advisability  of  taking  possession  of  the  District  At- 
torney's office  that  night,  but  concluded  to  wait  until 
morning.  In  this  Ruef  sufifered  the  fate  of  many  a 
general  who  has  consented  to  delay.  When  morning 
came,  District  Attorney  Langdon  had  his  office  under 
guard,  and  San  Francisco  was  aroused  as  it  had  not 
been  in  a  generation. 

Supervisor  Wilson  had  not  misjudged  the  interpreta- 
tion that  would  be  placed  upon  Langdon's  suspension. 
The  Call  the  following  morning  denounced  Ruef  as 
"District  Attorney  by  usurpation  ;  a  prosecuting  officer  to 
save  himself  from  prosecution."    The  Chronicle  set  forth. 


98  Ruef's  order  dismissing-  Heney  was  as  follows: 
"Mr.  Francis  J.  Heney:     You  are  hereby  removed  from  the  posi- 
tion of  Assistant  District  Attorney  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco. 

"Dated,   Ortnber  25.    1906.  (Signed)   A.   RUEF, 

"Acting  District  Attorney." 


Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office       91 

in  a  biting"  editorial  article,  that  "as  long"  as  they  (the 
Riief-Schmitz  combine)  felt  safe  from  prosecution,  they 
jauntily  declared  that  they  would  like  to  see  the  accusa- 
tions fully  justified,  but  the  instant  they  began  to  realize 
the  possibility  of  being  sent  to  San  Quentin,  they  turned 
tail  and  resorted  to  a  trick  which  every  man  in  the 
community  with  gumption  enough  to  form  a  judgment 
in  such  matters  will  recognize  as  a  confession  of  guilt." 

The  Examiner  called  the  removal  of  Langdon  and 
the  appointment  of  Ruef,  "the  last  stand  of  criminals 
hunted  and  driven  to  bay." 

"They  have."  said  the  Examiner,  "come  to  a  point 
where  they  will  stop  at  nothing.  .  .  .  William  H. 
Lang<lon,  the  fearless  District  Attorney,  and  Francis  J. 
Heney,  the  great  prosecutor,  have  driven  the  bribe- 
seekers  and  the  bribe-takers  to  a  condition  of  political 
madness.  In  hysterical  fear  they  last  night  attempted 
their  anarchistic  method  of  defense." 

The  Bulletin  devoted  its  entire  editorial  page  to 
Ruef's  new  move,  heading  the  article.  "Ruef's  Illegal 
.Action  is  Confession  of  Guilt." 

"Nothing,"  said  the  Bulletin,  "in  the  history  of  an- 
archy parallels  in  cool,  deliberate  usurpation  of  authority 
this  latest  exhibition  of  lawlessness  in  San  Francisco. 
Government  is  seized  to  overthrow  government. 
Authority  is  exercised  in  defiance  of  authority.  The 
office  of  the  District  Attorney  is  seized  deliberately,  with 
malice  aforethought,  with  strategy  and  cunning  and  used 
as  a  fort  for  thieves  to  battle  down  the  forces  of  citizen- 
ship. The  criminals,  accused  of  felony,  after  inviting 
investigation  and  pretending  to  assist,  have  shown  their 


92       Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office 

hypocrisy  by  committing  an  act  of  anarchy  which,  while 
it  might  be  tolerated  for  the  time  being  in  San  Francisco, 
would  result  in  the  execution  of  these  men  in  any  gov- 
ernment of  Europe." 

Gallagher's  action,  while  upheld  by  the  Union-Labor 
party  leaders,  and  by  the  unions  which  these  leaders 
dominated,  was  condemned  by  independent  labor  organ- 
izations. 

The  Building  Trades  Council,  with  which  all  the 
building  trades  unions  were  affiliated,  dominated  by 
P.  H.  McCarthy,  promptly  endorsed  Gallagher's  action 
in  removing  Langdon.  But  many  of  the  affiliated  unions 
not  only  withheld  endorsement,  but  some  of  them  re- 
pudiated the  action  of  the  central  body. 

The  Bricklayers  and  Masons'  Union,  for  example, 
with  800  members  present,  and  without  a  dissenting  vote, 
adopted  resolutions  declaring  that  "the  President  and 
Secretary  ^^  of  the  Building  Trades  Council  are  not  fit 
per-sons  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  Union  movement  in 
San  Francisco,"  and  denouncing  the  course  of  the  mu- 
nicipal administration,  which  the  Building  Trades  Coun- 
cil had  approved,  as  "high-handed  defiance  of  the  law."''^'^ 

In  spite  of  this  repudiation  by  the  unions,  Ruef  issued 

99  P.  H.  McCarthy  and  O.  A.  Tveitmoe,  respectively  president 
and  secretary  of  the  Building  Trades  Council. 

100  The  resolutions  adopted  by  Bricklayers'  and  Masons'  Inter- 
national Union  No.  7,  were  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  The  office  of  District  Attorney  of  San  Francisco 
County  has  been  declared  vacant  by  the  Acting  Mayor  and  Super- 
visors at  a  time  when  the  said  District  Attorney  was  preparing  an 
investigation  into  the  official  acts  of  the  said  Supervisors  and 
others;  and 

"W^hereas,  One  of  the  persons  accused  by  the  said  District 
Attorney  of  being  guilty  of  criminal  acts,  has  been  appointed  by 
the  Acting  Mayor  and  Supervisors  to  fill  the  office  thus  vacated; 
and 

"Whereas,  The  Building  Trades  Council  of  San  Francisco  has 
indorsed    the   action    of   the    administration,    and    the    president    and 


Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office       93 

a  statement  in  which  he  denounced  the  prosecution  as  a 
movement  "to  destroy  the  Union  Labor  organization  and 
to  control  the  situation  in  San  Francisco  in  the  interest 
of  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  success  of  the  wage- 
earning  classes."  He  announced  further,  "I  have  ac- 
cepted this  office,  the  first  political  position  I  ever  held 
in  my  life,  because  I  believe  it  to  be  my  duty  to  the 
public  to  bring  to  an  end  this  constant  defamation  and 
to  stop  the  publication  of  matter  detrimental  to  the  city's 
growth  and  material  interest." 

"I  do  not  intend,"  he  said,  "to  make  any  changes  in 
the  personnel  of  the  District  Attorney's  office  until  it  is 
determined  what  fate  Mr.  Langdon  shall  meet,  with  the 
exception  that  Mr.  Heney  will  not  be  retained.  I  will 
not  have  Mr.  Heney  in  my  office  because  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  his  moral  standing  is  equal  to  the  position."  ^'^^ 

secretary  of  said  Council  has  aided  and  abetted  said  usurpation  of 
power  to  the  utmost  of  their  ability;  therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  this  Union  condemn  the  action  of  the  Council 
in  this  matter,  and  that  we  condemn  the  president  and  secretary 
of  the  Council  for  lending  or  selling  their  aid  to  help  to  prevent 
the  investigation  of  the  public  acts  of  officials  who  have  thrown 
themselves  open  to  suspicion,  and  thereby  placing  the  honest  union 
men  of  San  Francisco  in  the  false  light  of  indorsing  such  high- 
handed defiance  of  the  law;  and  l^e  it 

"Resolved,  That  we  deny  that  the  proposed  prosecution  of  the 
present  administration  is  an  attack  on  organized  labor:  and  further, 
be  it 

"Resolved.  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Union  that  the  president 
and  secretary  of  the  Building  Trades  Council  are  not  fit  persons  to 
be  at  the  head  of  the  I'nion  movement  in  San  Francisco,  and  that 
the  delegates  representing  this  T^nion  in  the  Council  are  hereby 
instructed  to  use  every  honorable  means  to  carry  out  the  spirit 
of  this  resolution;  and  further,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  furnished  by  the 
corresponding  secretary  to  each  and  every  Union  affiliated  with  the 
Council,  so  that  they  tvill  consider  this  an  invitation  from  this 
Union  to  assist  in  ridding  the  central  body  of  ofllcers  whom  we 
believe  have  done  all  in  their  power  to  bring  unionism  into  dis- 
repute." 

Similar  resolutions  were  adopted  by  .Tourneymen  Plumbers.  Gas 
and  Steam  Fitters'  Local,  No.   442. 

101  See  Ruef's  statement  as  published  in  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle,   October  26,   1906. 


94       Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office 

District  Attorney  Langdon  was  out  of  the  city  when 
Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  announced  his  suspension  from 
office.  Langdon  hurried  back  prepared  to  resist  the 
executive's  action. ^"^  Even  while  Ruef  and  his  asso- 
ciates were  debating  the  advisability  of  taking  possession 
of  the  District  Attorney's  office  that  night,  attorneys  for 
the  prosecution  were  at  work  on  papers  in  injunction 
proceedings  to  restrain  Acting  Mayor  Gallagher,  the 
Supervisors  and  Ruef  from  interfering  with  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties.  The  papers 
were  not  ready  before  5  o'clock  of  the  morning  of  the 
26th.  At  that  hour,  Superior  Judge  Sea  well  signed  an 
order  temporarily  restraining  Ruef  from  installing  him- 
self as  District  Attorney,  and  from  interfering  with 
Langdon  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  as  District  At- 
torney. By  eight  o'clock  that  morning.  Presiding  Judge 
Graham  of  the  Superior  Court  had  assigned  the  case  to 
Judge  Seawell's  department ;  a  police  officer  and  two 
deputy  sheriffs  had  been  installed  in  the  District  Attor- 
ney's office  with  instructions  to  enforce  the  restraining 
order.  For  the  time,  at  least.  District  Attorney  Langdon 
was  secure  in  his  office. 

Ruef  appeared  two  hours  later.     He  was  that  morn- 

102  Mr.  Langdon,  on  arriving  in  San  Francisco,  issued  tlie  fol- 
lowing statement: 

"No  person  in  California  believes  that  my  alleged  suspension  i.s 
due  to  neglect  or  inefficiency.  No  dissent  is  necessary  before  the 
people.  It  is  plain  that  my  removal  is  deemed  necessary  by  Ruef 
and  Gallagher  to  prevent  an  honest,  searching  Investigation  of 
conditions  that  prevail  in  municipal  affairs  in  ,San  Francisco.  Their 
plan  will  come  to  naught,  however. 

"As  District  Attorney  I  shall  ptirsue  this  investigation  to  the 
end.  I  deny  the  legal  right  of  the  Mayor  or  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors to  suspend  or  dismiss  me.  The  provision  of  the  Charter 
purporting  to  give  that  authority  is  clearly  unconstitutional.  The 
citizens  must  determine  whetlier  or  not  they  will  countenance  this 
higii-handed  proceeding  in  a  community  which  is  supposed  to  be 
governed  by  the  law,  and  not  by  the  will  of  a  boss  and  his  puppet." 


Fight  for  District  Attorney's  Office       95 

ing  to  have  represented  the  defendant  in  a  murder  trial, 
The  People  vs.  Denike,  but  began  the  day  by  formally 
withdrawing  from  the  case  on  the  ground  that  as  Dis- 
trict Attorney  he  could  not  appear  for  the  defense.  He 
appeared  in  the  police  courts  ready  to  prosecute  a  libel 
suit  which  he  had  brought  against  the  proprietor  of  the 
San  Francisco  Bulletin,  but  the  justice  had  been  served 
with  Judge  Seawell's  restraining  order  and  the  libel-case 
hearing  was  postponed.  In  Judge  Dunne's  department 
of  the  Superior  Court,  Ruef  received  something  of  a  set- 
back. The  Court  made  a  special  order  permitting  one 
of  Langdon's  deputies  to  prosecute  in  a  criminal  action 
then  pending,  regardless  of  who  might  be  District  At- 
torney. The  restraining  order  kept  Ruef  and  Wood- 
worth  out  of  the  District  Attorney's  office.  By  noon  it 
was  evident  that  at  the  big  event  of  that  eventful  day, 
the  impaneling  of  the  Grand  Jury.  Langdon,  and  not 
Ruef,  would,  as  District  Attorney,  represent  The  People. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled. 

The  hard  fight  of  the  morning  of  October  26th  to 
prevent  Riief  taking  possession  of  the  District  Attorney's 
ofifice  had  been  carried  on  practically  without  the  general 
public  being  aware  of  the  proceedings.  Langdon  had 
been  suspended  early  in  the  evening  of  the  previous  day. 
The  temporary  order  restraining  Ruef  from  interfering 
with  the  District  Attorney  had  been  signed  at  5  o'clock 
in  the  morning.  The  general  public  found  by  the  morn- 
ing papers  that  Ruef  had  attempted  to  seize  the  office, 
but  of  the  steps  taken  to  stay  his  hand  the  papers  had 
nothing.  The  question  on  every  man's  lip  was:  Will 
Judge  Graham  recognize  Ruef  or  Langdon  as  District 
Attorney  at  the  impaneling  of  the  Grand  Jury? 

The  court  was  to  meet  at  2  o'clock.  Long  before 
that  hour  arrived,  the  halls  of  Temple  Israel,  a  Jewish 
synagogue  in  which  several  departments  of  the  Superior 
Court  met  during  the  months  following  the  great  fire, 
were  packed  with  citizens.  The  street  in  front  of  the 
building  soon  became  jammed  with  a  struggling  mass  of 
men  demanding  entrance.  The  crowd  became  so  great 
that  none  could  enter  or  leave  the  building. 

Plain-clothes  men  were  on  all  sides,  and  succeeded  in 
clearing  a  space  about  the  entrance.  The  work  of  clear- 
ing the  building  of  all  who  could  not  show  that  they 
had  business  there,  then  began.     In  this  work,  deference 


Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled  97 

was  shown  Rnef's  adherents.  Notorious  saloon-keepers, 
ex-prize  fighters  and  strong-arm  men  friendly  to  Riief 
were  permitted  to  remain.  Opponents  of  the  administra- 
tion who  protested  against  removal  were  unceremo- 
niously thrown  out. 

Although  little  groups  of  partisans  of  the  adminis- 
tration appeared  in  the  crowd,  the  citizens  assembled 
were  in  the  main  clearly  in  sympathy  with  the  prosecu- 
tion.^"^ The  arrival  of  Langdon,  Heney  and  Spreckels 
Vv-as  signal  for  outbursts  of  applause.  Ruef  apparently 
appreciated  the  feeling  against  him.  He  appeared  guard- 
ed by  two  detectives  of  the  regular  police  department,^"* 
and  a  body-guard  of  partisans.  The  crowd  began  to 
press  about  him.  Several  of  his  followers  made  motions 
as  though  to  draw  revolvers.  Ruef  hurried  into  the 
building.  To  add  to  the  confusion,  there  was,  planned 
or  without  planning,  misunderstanding  as  to  the  room  in 
which  the  hearing  was  to  be  held.  The  representatives 
of  District  Attorney  Langdon's  office  finding  themselves 
misinformed  as  to  the  meeting  place,  forced  their  way 
from   hall  to  hall   seeking  reliable  information.     When 


103  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  October  27  thus 
described  the  crowd:  "Every  man  the  police  put  out  of  the  build- 
ing was  cheered  by  the  crowd  and  every  time  policemen  laid  hands 
on  anyone  they  were  hissed.  However,  it  was  evident  that  the 
citizens  who  g'athered  outside  the  Temple  Israel  yesterday  after- 
noon did  not  come  prepared  to  fight  with  the  police  force.  In  the 
crowd  standing-  outside  almost  every  man  prominent  in  the  business 
and  professional  life  of  the  city  could  be  seen.  Manufacturers, 
merchants,  lawyers,  doctors,  men  ensrasred  in  all  the  various  lines 
of  wholesale  and  retail  business,  and  nil  the  professions,  included 
amoner  the  latter  beinc:  man\-  Protestant  ministers,  Catholic  priests 
nnd  .lewish  rabbis.  T-Tf>re  and  there  in  the  srreat  concourse  of  peo- 
ple were  scattered  little  .groups  of  men  of  the  tjT>e  that  may  be 
seen  hangln,<?  around  the  tenderloin," 

10.4  Detectives  Steve  Bunner  and  Tim  Riordan.  These  men 
accompanied  Ruef  for  nearly  a  month.  Late  in  November,  after 
Ruef  had  been  indicted,  they  were  sent  back  to  active  duty. 


98  Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled 

the  room  was  finally  located,  it  was  found  to  be  packed 
with  Ruef  followers.  The  sheriff  ordered  the  doors 
closed.  The  Court's  attention  was  called  to  this.  Dis- 
trict Attorney  Langdon  insisted  that  the  doors  be  opened 
and  the  crowd  permitted  to  enter  to  the  capacity  of  the 
room.  He  pointed  out  that  some  had  been  admitted  and 
others  kept  out,  and  insisted  there  should  be  no  dis- 
crimination. This  course  was  taken.  The  crowd  poured 
in  until  every  available  foot  of  standing  room  was  occu- 
pied."^ 

Eighteen  of  the  nineteen  citizens  required  under  the 
California  law  for  Grand  Jury  service  had  already  been 
drawn  at  former  sessions  of  the  court.  As  soon  as 
order  had  been  secured,  the  name  of  the  nineteenth  was 
taken  from  the  jury  box. 

This  detail  over,  Heney  called  the  Court's  attention 
to  the  provision  of  the  California  law.  that  no  person 
whose  name  does  not  appear  on  the  assessment  roll  of 
the  county  in  which  he  serves  is  eligible  for  Grand  Jury 
service,  and  that  the  courts  have  held  further,  that  bias 
or  prejudice  of  a  Grand  Juror  against  a  person  indicted 
is  sufficient  grounds  for  setting  aside  the  indictment. 
Heney  then  stated  that  he  wished  to  examine  the  nine- 
teen men  as  to  their  qualifications  as  Grand  Jurors. 

Ruef.  announcing  himself  as  an  officer  of  the  coiu't. 


105  While  the  crowd  was  pressing  into  the  room,  a  deputy  sheriff 
undertook  to  search  Heney  for  concealed  weapons.  Heney  com- 
plained of  the  ofRcer's  conduct,  protested  vigoroiisly.  "That  is  the 
man  standing  there,"  cried  Heney,  "he  did  so  at  the  request  of  Abe 
Ruef." 

"T^''ho  was  informed  that  Mr.  Heney  was  armed,"  responded 
Ruef. 

It  developed  that  Heney  was  not  armed,  and  the  incident  went 
no  further.  But  it  indicated  the  sharpness  of  the  division  between 
the   two  factions. 


Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled  99 

arose  to  speak.  Heney  objected  to  Ruef  appearing,  if 
by  officer  of  the  court  he  meant  District  Attorney  or 
Acting  District  Attorney.  Ruef  answered  that  he  ap- 
peared only  in  his  capacity  as  member  of  the  bar.  On 
this  showing  he  was  allowed  to  proceed. 

Ruef  contended  that  the  procedure  proposed  by 
Heney  was  irregular;  that  if  followed  the  validity  of 
the  Grand  Jury  would  be  imperiled.  He  stated  that  he 
did  not  want  to  see  the  Grand  Jury  made  an  illegal  body. 

Heney  replied  that  he  intended,  as  Assistant  District 
Attorney,  to  present  felony  charges  against  Ruef,  and 
desired  to  examine  the  prospective  Grand  Jurors  as  to 
their  bias  for  or  against  Ruef.  Furthermore,  Heney 
insisted,  the  Court  had  authority  to  excuse  a  juror  if 
he  were  not  on  the  assessment  roll.  To  accept  as  Grand 
Jurors  men  whose  names  were  not  on  the  assessment 
roll,  or  men  biased  or  prejudiced  against  Ruef  would, 
Heney  insisted,  make  the  proceedings  a  farce."® 

106  The  Chronicle  of  October  27,  1906,  contains  the  following 
account  of  Heney's  reply  to  Ruef:  "  'I  now  announce  to  the 
court,'  said  Heney  fervently,  'that  I  intend  as  Assistant  District 
Attorney,  to  present  charges  of  felony  and  misdemeanor  against 
Abraham  Ruef,  and  I  desire  to  examine  the  members  of  this  panel 
to  determine  if  any  member  entertains  bias  or  prejudice  for  or 
against  Abraham  Ruef  in  the  matter  of  the  charges  which  are  to 
be  presented  by  the  District  Attorney's  office.  I  understand  that 
there  is  no  question  as  to  Abraham  Ruef's  right  to  have  the  indict- 
ment set  aside  if  any  member  of  the  Grand  Jury  is  biased  or  preju- 
diced against  him.  It  would  be  a  farce,'  Heney  went  on,  his  voice 
swelling,  'it  would  be  adding  to  the  comedy  of  errors  enacted  last 
night  (the  attempted  removal  of  Langdon  from  offlce),  if  we  have  a 
Grand  Jury  which  is  biased  or  prejudiced.  It  has  become  public 
through  the  nev.^spnpers — to  some  extent,  at  least— that  Abraham 
Ruef  is  to  be  investigated.  The  People  have  the  same  right  as  the 
defendant  to  examine  the  members  of  the  panel  as  to  their  qualifi- 
cations. I  know  that  a  number  of  the  members  do  not  possess  the 
qualifications  provided  by  the  statute,  as  they  are  not  on  the 
assessment  roll,  and  I  desire  to  question  them  on  that  point.  The 
Court  has  the  right  to  excuse  a  juror  if  he  is  not  on  the  assess- 
ment roll.  The  Supreme  Court  has  decided  that  a  man  has  the 
right  to  be  investigated  by  a  Grand  Jury  of  nineteen  men  who  are 
qualified  according  to  the  statute  and  none  others.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  take  for  grand  jurors  the  nineteen  whose  names  are  first 


loo         Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled 

In  reply  to  Heney,  Ruef  defied  him  to  produce  any 
evidence  "in  open  court  before  an  untutored  Grand 
Jury  for  an  indictment."  Ruef  charged  Heney  further 
with  employing  abuse  "to  make  the  Grand  Jury  illegal 
so  that  nothing  might  come  of  any  indictment." 

At  this  point,  the  Attorney  General  of  the  State, 
U.  S.  Webb,^''^  addressed  the  Court.     At  his  suggestion 

drawn  from  the  box.  We  should  examine  them,  so  that  a  member 
who  has  a  bias  or  prejudice  as  to  a  particular  person  may  be  in- 
structed that  he  shall  not  participate  in  the  investigation  of  that 
person.'  " 

107  Under  the  California  law,  the  Attorney-General  may  at  his 
discretion,  take  the  prosecution  of  a  criminal  case  out  of  the  hands 
of  a  District  Attorney.  It  was  within  General  "Webb's  province  to 
have  taken  charge  of  the  San  Francisco  graft  trials.  In  a  state- 
ment given  wide  publicity  at  the  time.  General  Webb  stated  that 
he  had  no  intention  of  taking  charge  of  the  graft  trials  unless  Ruef 
succeeded  in  seizing  the  District  Attorney's  ofRce.  Long  after, 
however,  Heney,  in  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs. 
Patrick  Calhoun,  Thornwell  MuUnllv,  Tirey  L.  Ford,  William  M. 
Abbott,  Abraham  Ruef  and  Eugene  E.  Schmitz,  No.  823,  set  forth 
a  statement  made  to  him  by  Ruef  when  Ruef  was  pleading  for 
immunity,  in  which  Webb's  presence  at  the  impaneling  of  the  Grand 
Jury  was  touched  upon  as  follows: 

"Ruef  said  in  reply  in  substance,  'You  are  prejudiced  against 
me,  Heney,  ever  since  we  had  that  quarrel  during  last  election. 
You  know  that  the  public-service  corporations  are  responsible  for 
the  conditions  which  exist  in  San  Francisco  and  that  I  can  help 
you  send  some  of  the  officials  of  those  corporations  to  the  peni- 
tentiary, and  I  can  also  help  you  to  clean  up  this  city  and  make  it 
impossible  for  corruption  to  get  a.  foothold  here  again  for  a  long 
time.  You  are  afraid  to.  trust  me,  but  you  are  making  a  mistake. 
The  moment  it  becomes  known  that  I  have  gone  over  to  the  prose- 
cution the  most  powerful  influenofts  in  this  State  will  all  be  arrayed 
against  us,  and  particularly  against  me.  The  moment  you  attack 
Pat  Calhoun  you  in  fact  attack  ITerrin.  You  don't  know  the  rela- 
tion between  these  parties  and  the  corporation  as  well  as  I  do.  I 
am  very  fond  of  Tirey  Ford,  but  I  don't  care  a  rap  about  Pat  Cal- 
houn, and  would  just  as  soon  testify  against  him  a?  not.  But  the 
moment  it  becomes  known  that  I  am  ready  to  do  so  my  life  will 
no  longer  be  safe.  I  will  have  to  stick  to  the  prosecution  from  the 
moment  I  start  in  with  it.  You  don't  know  what  desperate  means 
these  people  are  capable  of  resorting  to.  My  life  will  not  be  safe. 
If  they  keep  me  in  the  county  jail  with  O'Neil  as  Shei-iff  they  will 
kill  me  to  a.  certainty.  You  don't  know  how  many  influential  people 
are  involved  in  this  thing.  You  and  Burns  think  you  know,  but 
there  are  a  lot  of  people  whom  you  don't  know  anything  about  who 
are  mixed  up  in  it.  I  tell  you  that  the  combined  influence  of  all 
these  people  will  make  it  next  to  impossible  to  secure  convictions, 
and  will  make  it  very  dangerous  for  all  of  us.  It  will  not  do  to 
lessen  the  weight  of  my  testimonv  any  by  having  me  plead  guilty 
in  that  extortion  case.  Besides  that,  the  Court  would  not  allow 
me   bail   after  I  had   pleaded  guilty,   and   the   Supreme   Court   may 


Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled  loi 

the  Grand  Jurors  were  excused  for  the  day.  General 
Webb  then  stated  that  he  knew  of  no  law  for  the  pro- 
cedure which  Mr.  Heney  suggested.  He  admitted, 
however,  that  such  procedure  would  be  desirable,  and 
advised  that  no  hasty  action  be  taken  in  coming  to  a 
decision. 

Heney  in  reply  read  from  California  decisions  to. 
show  that  The  People  have  the  authority  to  make  ex- 
amination of  Grand  Jurors,  and  continued : 

"The  only  question  remaining  is  as  to  when  this  ex- 
amination shall  be  made.  Suppose  the  foreman  of  the 
Grand  Jury  is  biased  or  prejudiced.  Does  it  require 
any  argument  that  now  is  the  time  to  make  this  examina- 
tion instead  of  waiting  until  we  have  presented  our  evi- 
dence to  the  Grand  Jury?  Shall  we  first  have  to  give 
those  whom  we  accuse  time  to  bribe  witnesses  and  get 
them  out  of  the  country?  Shall  we  let  the  defendant 
come  in  and  quash  the  indictment,  if  there  is  any  bias 
or  prejudice,  and  then  be  enabled  to  protect  himself 
against  prosecution? 

"After  the  miserable  fiasco  (the  attempted  removal  of 

knock  out  the  elisor,  and  then  I  would  be  absolutely  in  the  hands 
of  the  other  people,  and  they  would  surely  kill  me.  Sheriff  O'Neil 
is  loyal  to  me  now,  but  the  moment  he  knew  I  was  going?  to  testify 
against  Schmitz  he  would  be  very  bitter  against  me,  and  would  do 
whatever  those  people  wanted  him  to  do.  Moreover,  Herrin  will 
get  Attorney-General  Webb  to  come  down  and  take  these  cases  out 
of  the  hands  of  Langdon  and  yourself,  and  he  will  declare  the 
immunity  contract  off  upon  the  ground  that  the  District  Attorney 
has  no  power  to  make  one  and  will  prosecute  me  on  some  of  the 
bribery  cases  now  pending  against  me,  and  if  they  convict  me  Her- 
rin will  see  to  it  that  I  am  not  pardoned  by  the  Governor.  He 
now  controls  the  Governor  and  the  chances  are  he  will  continue  to 
name  the  Governor  and  control  him  for  the  next  twenty  years. 
Webb  wa.q  a  deputy  in  Ford's  office  when  Ford  was  Attorney- 
General,  and  it  was  Ford  who  got  him  to  come  down  here  and 
'butt  in'  at  the  time  you  were  impaneling  the  Grand  Jury.  I  know 
you  fellows  thought  it  was  I  who  got  him  to  come  down  here,  but 
as  a  matter  of  fact  I  did  not  know  any  more  about  it  than  you  did 
until  he  appeared  there,  and  I  am  sure  it  was  Ford  who  did  It." 


I02         Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled 

Langdon)  which  occurred  last  night,"  Heney  went  on, 
"what  more  important  duty  for  this  Court  to  perform 
than  to  say  immediately  that  the  law  is  more  powerful 
than  any  man  or  any  set  of  men  in  San  Francisco?" 

As  Heney  concluded,  the  packed  courtroom  burst  into 
applause.  The  crowd  outside  heard,  took  it  up  and 
cheered  wildly.  As  soon  as  order  was  restored,  Henry 
Ach,  one  of  the  attorneys  appearing  for  Ruef,  suggested 
that  Heney,  the  Attorney  General  and  himself,  get  to- 
gether to  present  the  question  of  whether  Langdon  or 
Ruef  were  District  Attorney  to  the  Supreme  Court. 
Ach  stated  that  he  feared  if  Langdon  or  Heney  attended 
a  session  of  the  Grand  Jury  and  Ruef  were  to  be  found 
to  be  District  Attorney,  then  the  acts  of  the  Grand  Jury 
might  be  invalidated. 

Heney  replied  that  in  acting  as  prosecutor  it  had 
been  his  rule  "to  have  no  conferences,  treaties  or  alli- 
ances with  persons  charged  with  crime,  or  with  their 
attorneys."  On  this  ground.  Heney  declined  Mr.  Ach's 
proposition. 

Judge  Graham  made  no  rulings  that  day  on  any  of 
the  points  raised,  but  ordered  a  continuance  until  the 
following  Monday. 

After  adjournment  of  court,  the  appearance  of  Lang- 
don and  Heney  at  the  entrance  of  the  building  brought 
forth  cheers  from  the  crowd  that  all  through  the  pro- 
ceedings had  waited  outside.  A  speech  was  demanded 
of  Langdon. 

"My  friends,"  he  replied,  "we  have  no  speeches  to 
make.  We  have  a  duty  to  perform  and  we  will  perform 
that  duty." 


Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled  103 

Immediately  behind  Langdon  came  Ruef,  closely 
guarded  by  police  and  detectives.  He  was  pale  and 
worn  and  clearly  frightened.  The  crowd  pressed  about 
him.  Threats  came  from  his  followers  to  shoot  into  the 
crowd  if  it  pressed  too  closely.  Ruef  finally  reached  his 
automobile  and  was  driven  away.^"^ 

The  topic  of  discussion  of  the  two  days  that  elapsed 
before  Judge  Graham  decided  the  questions  that  had 
been  raised  by  Heney's  proposal  to  proceed  with  the  ex- 
amination of  the  Grand  Jurors,  was  whether  Graham 
would  allow  such  examination.  It  was  alleged  that  no 
less  than  four  of  the  citizens  drawn  for  Grand  Jury 
service   were  not  on  the  assessment   roll.     There  were. 


ii'S  Whilo  Ruef  was  struggling  through  the  crowd  to  reach  his 
automo})ile  Dr.  Shadwiek  O.  Beasley,  Instructor  in  Anatomy  at  the 
Cooper  Medical  College,  was  assaulted  by  some  unidentified  person. 
Dr.  Beasley  turned,  shook  his  first  at  Ruef  and  hissed  him.  The 
doctor  was  immediately  placed  under  arrest.  Dr.  Beasley,  on  his 
part,  swore  out  a  warrant  charging  an  unknown  deputy  sheriff 
with  batteiy.  Beasley  was  then  made  subject  of  petty  persecu- 
tion. He  was.  for  example,  held  up  on  the  street  by  a  deputy 
sheriff  and  charged  with  carrying  a  concealed  weapon.  He  was 
searched  by  two  men,  but  nothing  more  deadly  than  a  case  of 
surgical  instruments  was  found  upon  him.  Dr.  Beasley  complained 
bitterly  of  t'le  rough  treatment  from  the  officers. 

The  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  October  27.  1906. 
thus  describes  the  scene  which  followed  Ruef's  appearance  before 
the  crowd: 

"With  fists  and  clubs  Chief  of  Police  Dinan  and  his  squad  from 
the  Central  Police  Station  fought  off  the  crowd  of  angry  citizens 
assembled  about  the  Temple  Israel  who  sought  to  lay  violent  hands 
on  Abe  Ruef  when  the  curly-headed  usurper  of  the  functions  of  the 
municipal  government  was  leaving  the  scene  of  the  Grand  Jury 
meeting  yesterday  afternoon.  And  in  the  wake  of  the  police  were 
the  Ruef  heelers  from  the  tenderloin  with  their  hands  on  theii 
pistols,  threatening  to  shoot  down  the  citizens  of  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  wlio  should  dare  to  approach  too  near  the  sacred  person 
of   tlieir  tenderloin   idol. 

"It  was  one  of  the  most  remarkable  scenes  ever  witnessed  in 
any  city  of  this  country.  Stung  with  the  outrageous  assumption 
of  the  powers  of  the  public  prosei^utor  when  he  was  about  to  be 
placed  on  trial  himself  for  crime,  the  citizens  of  the  city,  among 
whom  are  names  that  stand  highest  in  business  and  professional 
circles,  sought  to  make  him  realize  the  impudence  of  his  conduct. 
That  he  escaped  a  swift  punishment  for  his  arrogant  seizure  of  the 
office  of  the  Distrirt  Attorney  is  solely  due  to  the  presence  and 
strenuous   efforts   of  the   police." 


I04         Oliver  Grand  Juiy  Impaneled 

too,  charges  that  Ruef  controlled  several  of  them.  Some 
of  the  papers  printed  the  names  of  those  whom  it  was 
alleged  were  either  under  obligations  to  Ruef  or  con- 
nected with  his  political  organization. 

A  second  crowd  filled  courtroom,  building  and  street 
when  Judge  Graham's  court  was  called  to  order  the  fol- 
lowing A^onday.  Mounted  policemen,  plain-clothes  men 
and  detectives,  directed  by  two  captains  of  police,  were, 
however,  on  hand  to  preserve  order.^"^  There  were  no 
demonstrations.  Judge  Graham  announced  from  the 
bench  that  after  due  deliberation,  he  had  concluded  that 
the  District  Attorney  had  the  right  to  interrogate  the 
Grand  Jurors  as  to  their  qualifications.  He  stated  fur- 
ther that  inasmuch  as  Langdon  v/as  the  de  facto  District 
Attorney,  Langdon  would  conduct  the  examination. 

The  prosecution  had  won  the  first  skirmish  in  the 
years-long  fight  upon  which  San  Francisco  was  entering 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 

The  next  move  came  from  Attorney  Samuel  JM. 
Shortridge.  Shortridge  appeared  with  Ruef's  attorney, 
Henry  Ach,  and  Marshall  B.  Woodworth.  Ruef  had 
named  Woodworth,  it  will  be  remembered,  as  Heney's 
successor  in  the  District  Attorney's  office. 

Mr.  Shortridge  read  Acting  Mayor  Gallagher's  order 
suspending  Langdon  and  appointing  Ruef,  and  also 
called  the  Court's  attention  to  the  fact  that  Ruef  had 
filed  his  official  bond  as  District  Attorney.     Shortridge 

109  In  sending  his  officers  to  handle  this  crowd,  Chief  of  Police 
Dinan  gave  the  following  instructions: 

"The  captains,  sergeants  and  officers  so  detailed  are  Instructed 
that  they  are  sent  to  the  place  designated  for  the  purpose  of  doing 
strict  police  duty.  They  will  see  that  the  streets  and  sidewalks 
are  not  obstructed,  and  that  no  violations  of  the  law  are  per- 
mitted." 


Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled  105 

stated  that  the  matter  was  pending  before  Judge  Seavvell, 
and  asked  the  Court,  "in  deference  to  Judge  Seawell," 
to  postpone  proceedings  until  the  District-Attorney  con- 
troversy should  be  decided.  Shortridge  expressed  him- 
self as  fearful  that,  if  the  examination  of  the  Grand 
Jurors  went  on.  Judge  Seawell's  decision  might  invali- 
date the  Grand  Jury  proceedings. 

W.  T.  Baggett,  Assistant  City  Attorney,^^"  followed 
Shortridge.  Mr.  Baggett  read  a  letter  from  the  Acting 
Mayor,  setting  forth  the  fact  of  Langdon's  removal,  and 
joined  with  Shortridge  in  pleading  for  delay.  But  the 
pleas  of  both  gentlemen  were  denied.  Judge  Graham 
repeated  his  opinion  given  earlier  in  the  day  that  Lang- 
don  should  be  recognized  as  the  de  facto  District  Attor- 
ne)'',  and  ordered  the  impaneling  of  the  Grand  Jury  to 
continue. 

Shortridge  thereupon  announced  his  desire  to  par- 
ticipate in  the  examination  of  the  Grand  Jurors.  Heney 
objected  to  Shortridge  appearing  as  a  representative  of 
the  District  Attorney's  office.  Shortridge  replied  that 
he  respected  Judge  Seawell's  order,  and  had  no  intention 
of  violating  it.  He  asked  if  he  would  be  permitted  to 
act  in  the  capacity  of  amicus  curiae  ^^^  in  examining 
jurors.     This  privilege  was  accorded  him. 

The  examination  of  the  Grand  Jurors  occupied  more 


110  Under  the  San  Francisco  municipal  charter,  the  District 
Attorney  has  cliarge  of  criminal  cases,  and  the  City  Attorney  of 
civil  cases  in  which  the  city  is  concerned.  The  City  Attorney  also 
acts  as  adviser  to  the  Mayor  and  Board  of  Supervisors.  The  two 
are  independent  offices. 

m  Shortridge  stated  that  as  amicus  curiae,  it  was  his  duty  to 
see  that  the  proceedings  were  without  flaw.  Heney  refused  to  take 
him  seriously,  however,  referred  to  liim  facetiously  as  the  "curious 
friend  of  the  Court."  and  suggested  that  the  Court  unassisted  might 
be  able   to  determine  what  was  competent   evidence. 


io6         Oliver  Grand  Jury  Impaneled 

than  a  week.  Several  of  the  nineteen  were  excused,  it 
being  found  that  their  names  were  not  on  the  assess- 
ment roll. 

The  examination  was  conckided  ^^^  on  November  7th 
and  the  Grand  Jurors  sworn.  B.  P.  Oliver  was  ap- 
pointed foreman.  From  him  the  body  received  its  name 
of  Oliver  Grand  Jury.  The  Grand  Jury  organized  by 
electing  C.  G.  Burnett  secretary.  But  one  important 
question  remained  to  be  decided,  namely — Was  Ruef  or 
Langdon  to  represent  The  People  at  the  investigation 
into  graft  charges  which  the  Grand  Jury  was  ready  to 
beffin  ? 


112  The  following  nineteen  citizens  composed  the  Grand  Jury 
that  conducted  the  investigation  of  San  Francisco  "graft"  charges: 

E.  J.  Gallagher,  photographic  supply  dealer;  Frank  A.  Dwyer, 
real  estate;  Herman  H.  Young,  baker  and  restaurant  proprietor; 
Mendle  Rothenburg,  liquor  dealer;  James  E.  Gordon,  merchant; 
Alfred  Greenebaum,  merchant;  Wallace  Wise,  haberdasher;  Jere- 
miah Deasy,  insurance  agent;  Rudolph  Mohr,  brewer;  C.  G.  Burnett, 
capitalist;  Charles  Sonntag,  merchant;  Morris  A.  Levingston,  liquor 
dealer;  B.  P.  Oliver,  real  estate;  W.  P.  Redington,  druggist;  Chris- 
tian P.  Rode,  drayman;  Ansel  C.  Robinson,  merchant;  Dewey 
Coffin,  real  estate;  F.  G.  Sanborn,  law  book  publisher;  Maurice 
Block,   merchant. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
RuEF  Loses  the  District  Attorney's  Office. 

While  the  impanehng  of  the  Grand  Jury  was  going 
on  before  Judge  Graham,  Ruef  was  disputing  Langdon's 
title  to  the  oflfice  of  District  Attorney  before  Judge  Sea- 
well.  In  these  proceedings  Samuel  M.  Shortridge  ap- 
peared with  Ruef's  attorney,  Ach,  and  Deputy  City  At- 
torney Baggett,  not  as  amicus  curiae,  but  as  Ach's  asso- 
ciate in  the  legal  contest  to  force  Langdon  out  of  office. 

The  principal  feature  of  Ruef's  case  was  the  intro- 
duction of  affidavits,  signed  by  sixteen  members  ^"  of 

113  The  Supervisors  who  signed  the  affidavits  exonerating  Ruef 
and  themselves  were:  Charles  Boxton,  Jennings  J.  Phillips,  W.  W. 
Sanderson,  F.  P.  Nicholas,  L.  A.  Rea,  Edward  I.  Walsh,  Andrew 
M.  Wilson,  J.  J.  Furey,  Sam  Davis,  C.  J.  Harrlgan,  James  T.  Kelly, 
P.  M.  McGushin,  Thomas  F.  Lonergan,  Daniel  G.  Coleman,  Max 
Mamlock  and  M.  W.  Coffey.  Each  of  them  made  declaration  as 
follows: 

"This  affiant  has  never  committed  a  felony  of  any  kind  or  char- 
acter, and  has  never  been  a  party  thereto,  and  there  is  not  and 
can  be  no  evidence  presented  of  or  concerning  any  felony  com- 
mitted by  the  undersigned  or  threatened  by  the  undersigned.  It  is 
not  true  that  this  affiant  has  ever  been  party  to  the  commission  of 
any  crime  or  any  misdemeanor. 

"This  affiant  further  says  that  any  and  all  charges,  assertions 
and  innuendoes  contained  in  the  complaint  and  contained  in  the 
public  press  of  and  concerning  any  alleged  felonies,  misdemeanors 
or  wrongful  acts  committed  or  alleged  to  have  been  committed  by 
this  defendant  are  absolutely  untrue  and  false,  and  this  affiant  has 
never  been  guilty  of  any  violation  of  the  law,  and,  so  far  as  the 
knowledge  of  this  affiant  is  concerned,  each  and  all  of  the  other 
defendants  named  herein  are  absolutely  innocent  of  the  commis- 
sion of  any  crime  or  felony  or  offense  against  the  laws  of  the 
State  of  California;  and  this  affiant  further  says  that  he  has  no 
knowledge,  direct  or  indirect,  of  the  commission  of  any  felony  or 
or  any  misdemeanors  or  of  any  violations  of  the  laws  of  the  State 
of  California,  or  any  thereof,  or  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco,   by  either  or  any  of  the  defendants  named  herein." 

At  the  graft  trials  it  developed  that  the  Supervisors  had  signed 
this  affidavit  without  reading  it.  At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs. 
Glass,  No.  fi7r».  Supervisor  Micliael  Coffey  testified  that  "On  the 
afternoon   that  affidavit  was  signed,   I  came  down  late   to  a   tnefttnff 


io8    Ruef  Loses  District  Attorney's  Office 

the  Board  of  Supervisors,  in  which  the  Supervisors  de- 
nied committing  felony  of  any  character.  Later,  after 
the  Supervisors  had  confessed,  these  affidavits  were  to 
be  used  by  the  defense  at  practically  all  the  graft  trials 
in  efforts  to  break  down  their  testimony  against  the 
bribe-givers. 

During  the  examination,  Ach  endeavored  to  force 
from  Langdon  and  his  deputies  a  statement  of  what  evi- 
dence they  had  against  Ruef.  In  this  Ach  failed.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  prosecution  sought  to  bring  out  tes- 
timony that  Ruef  had  directed  Gallagher  to  suspend 
Langdon. ^^*  To  this  end  Heney  placed  Ruef  on  the 
stand.  But  Judge  Seawell  stated  ^^^  that  he  did  not  at 
that  time  wish  to  go  into  question  of  motive  and  the 
point  was  not  pressed. 

of  the  board  and  the  members  of  the  board  were  in  the  Notary 
Public's  office.  I  went  over  there  and  met  Mr.  Keane,  and  Mr. 
Keane  produced  that  paper  and  asked  me  to  sign  it,  and  I  signed 
it  and  gave  him  a  dollar  to  pay  the  Notary  fees.  I  did  not  read  the 
affidavit  at  that  time.  It  was  not  read  aloud  to  me  while  I  was 
there.  I  did  not  talk  with  any  person  about  what  was  in  this 
affidavit  before  it  was  prepared.  I  did  not  know  who  prepared  it." 
See  page  237  of  transcript  on  appeal. 

Supervisor  "Wilson  testified:  "Mr.  Ruef  got  up  that  affidavit.  I 
believe.  I  signed  it  because  there  was  a  rumor  going  about  that 
some  of  the  Supervisors  had  gone  over  to  the  prosecution.  It  was 
so  stated  in  the  public  press  and  there  was  a  little  excitement 
among  the  members  of  the  board  and  we  understood  this  was  sent 
down  by  Mr.  Ruef  to  stiffen  them  up  and  to  find  out  if  that  was 
so.  It  was  not  read  at  the  notary's  office  while  I  was  there.  1 
did  not  read  it  before  signing  it."  See  Transcript  on  Appeal  The 
People  vs.   Glass,   page  278. 

Supervisor  Boxton  testified:  "I  signed  the  affidavit  just  shown 
me  at  the  request  of  the  clerk  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  Mr. 
George  Keane.  I  do  not  know  who  prepared  the  affidavit.  No  one 
had  talked  with  me  as  to  the  facts  that  were  to  be  put  in  it.  I 
knew  nothing  about  its  contents  at  all.  It  was  supposed  generally 
amongst  the  members  there  was  some  talk  about  it,  that  there  was 
some  of  the  members  there  that  were  a  Ijit  weak-kneed,  and  would 
probably  tell  all  they  knew,  so  this  affidavit  was  framed  up,  as  I 
understand  it,  to  tie  them  down  a  little  tighter  "  See  Transcript 
on   Appeal,    The   People   vs.    Glass,    page    251. 

Practically  the  same  testimony  was  given  by  otlier  Sui>*>rvi.«iors 
at  the  various  graft  trials. 

114  See  footnote  95,   page  87. 

11.^  The  passage  between  Heney  and  Ruef's  lawyers  which  fol- 


Ruef  Loses  District  Attorney's  Office    109 

The  outcome  of  the  proceedings  was  a  second  victory 
for  the  prosecution.  The  injunction  against  Ruef  was 
granted ;  ^^®  Langdon  was  left  in  peaceful  possession  of 
the  District  Attorney's  office. ^^^  Later,  Judge  Seawell 
issued  a  permanent  writ  of  prohibition  against  the  Board 
of  Supervisors  restraining  that  body  from  removing 
Langdon  from  office. 

Langdon  and  his  deputies,  after  a  three-weeks  fight, 
were  free  to  proceed  with  the  graft  investigation. 

lowed  Judge  Seawell's  ruling-  is  thus  set  forth  in  the  San  Francisco 
Chronicle  of  November  3rd: 

"  'You  can  ask  Mr.  Ruef  if  he  is  guilty  of  any  crimes  or  felonies,' 
Ach  suggested  to  Heney. 

"  'I  suppose  he'll  plead  guilty  here?'  responded  Heney  skepti- 
cally. 

"Samuel  M.  Shortridge,  of  Ruef's  legal  staff,  took  this  remark 
to  heart  and  hotly  said  to  Heney,  'You'll  plead  guilty  before  he 
does.'  The  Judge  informed  Shortridge  that  Heney  obviously  spoke 
in  jest,  but  Shortridge  thought  It  a  poor  joke.  Ruef  considered 
Heney's  whole  proceeding  a  joke." 

116  Judge  Seawell   in  his  decision  said: 

"I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  the  Charter,  in  so  far  as  it 
relates  to  removal  and  suspension,  does  not  apply  to  the  District 
Attorney.  I  am  firmly  convinced  that  neither  the  Mayor  nor  the 
Board  of  Supervisors  has  any  power  to  remove  or  suspend  him. 
The  District  Attorney  should  not  be  left  to  the  investigation  of 
the  municipal  authorities.  I  can  conceive  how  he  might  be  com- 
pelled to  proceed  against  the  very  persons  who  might  be  conduct- 
ing an  inquiry.  I  will  grant  the  injunction  as  prayed  for  against 
Mr.   Ruef." 

117  A  movement  to  secure  Heney's  dismissal  from  the  District 
Attorney's  office,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  accepted  a  fee  in 
addition  to  his  salary  as  Assistant  District  Attorney,  to  act  as 
prosecutor  was  started.  But  the  allegation  was  not  sustained  and 
another  failure  was  scored  by  the  defense. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

RUEF  AND  SCHMITZ   InDICTED. 

Within  twenty-four  hours  after  organizing,  the  Grand 
Jury  had  begun  investigation  into  graft  charges.  Ten- 
derloin extortion,  especially  in  connection  with  the  so- 
called  "French  Restaurants,"  was  the  first  matter  taken 
up.     The  inquiry  involved  both  Schmitz  and  Ruef. 

The  term  "French  Restaurant"  in  San  Francisco  is 
used  in  connection  with  a  particular  type  of  assigna- 
tion house.  These  establishments  contain  a  restaurant 
on  the  ground  floor,  and  sometimes  banquet  hall  and 
private  rooms  without  assignation  accompaniments.  The 
stories  overhead  are  devoted  to  private  supper  bedrooms. 
Some  of  these  assignation  places  are  several  stories  in 
height.  Before  the  fire,  among  the  establishments  al- 
leged to  be  "French  Restaurants"  were  Marchand's, 
Delmonico's.  the  New  Poodle  Dog,  the  Bay  State  and 
the  Pup.  The  extent  of  the  business  conducted  by  these 
places  is  indicated  by  the  testimony  of  A.  B.  Blanco, 
who  stated  under  oath  at  the  graft  trials  that  he  had 
$2CX),000  invested  in  the  New  Poodle  Dog.  while  Joe 
Malfanti  testified  that  he  had  about  $400,000  invested  in 
Delmonico's.^" 

French  Restaurants  had  long  been  a  scandal  in  San 
Francisco.     Toward  the  close  of  1904,  the  Police  Com- 


118  See  Transcript  on  Appeal  The  People  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia vs.  Eugene  B.  Schmitz,  pp.  500  and  557. 


Ruet  and  Schniitz  Indicted  1 1 1 

mission,  then  absolutely  under  domination  of  Schmitz 
and  Ruef,  gave  evidence  of  proceeding  against  such 
places.  The  commission,  as  a  beginning,  revoked  the 
liquor  license  of  a  "French  Restaurant"  known  as  Tor- 
toni's.  Without  a  license  to  sell  liquor  a  "French  Res- 
taurant" could  not  continue  in  business.  These  licenses 
had  to  be  renewed  once  every  three  months.  The  Police 
Commission  had  arbitrary  power  to  grant,  or  to  refuse, 
application  for  renewal.  One  by  one  renewal  applica- 
tions of  other  French  Restaurants  were  held  up.  It 
became  a  matter  of  common  report  that  all  the  "French 
Restaurants"  were  to  be  treated  as  Tortoni's  had  been, 
namely,  driven  out  of  business  by  having  their  licenses  to 
sell  liquors  revoked. 

And  then  Abe  Ruef  appeared  before  the  Police  Com- 
missioners as  attorney  for  the  "French  Restaurant" 
keepers."''  Ruef  asked  that  consideration  of  the  French 
Restaurant  cases  be  postponed  for  two  weeks.  This  was 
accorded  him.  Rut  his  request  that  during  those  two 
weeks  the  places  be  permitted  to  conduct  their  business 
as  before,  namely,  that  they  be  allowed  to  sell  liquors 

119  Ruef  stated  that  he  appeared  as  attorney  for  the  French 
Restaurant  Keepers'  Association.  But  tliose  who  paid  him  the 
money  for  his  efforts  in  this  instance  testified  at  the  trial  of  The 
People  vs.  Kug'ene  E.  Schmitz  that  they  held  membership  in  no 
such  organization,  nor  had  they  heard  of  it.  In  May,  1907,  Ruef 
stated  to  Heney  that  he  had  closed  the  bargain  with  the  French- 
restaurant  keepers  to  represent  them  on  .TANl'ARY  6,  1905.  He 
Insisted  that  he  had  at  first  flatly  refused  to  represent  them:  that 
he  had  had  no  intention  whatever  of  so  doing  until  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Bulletin  denounced  him  for  having  had  the  licenses  held  up 
and  challenged  him  to  take  the  cases  and  to  attempt  to  defend 
himself  upon  the  theory  that  the  money  so  obtained  by  him  was 
received  as  an   attorney's   fee. 

Heney  examined  the  Bulletin  files  and  found  that  the  first  tim« 
the  Bulletin  had  mentioned  the  French-restaurant  hold-up  as  an 
attempt  on  the  part  of  Ruef  to  extort  money  from  the  restaurant 
proprietors  was  in  the  last  edition  of  The  Bulletin  for  JANUARY 
7.  190f).  (See  Honev's  affidavit  in  the  c^se  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick 
Calhoun,   et   als..   No.   S23,   pp.    141   to  143,   inclusive.) 


112  Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted 

in  the  private  supper  bedrooms,  was  denied  by  a  tie 
vote,  two  commissioners  of  the  four  voting  for  Ruef 
and  two  against  him. 

Before  the  two  weeks'  extension  of  time  which  Ruef 
had  secured  had  expired,  Mayor  Schmitz  had  removed 
from  office  one  of  the  commissioners  who  had  opposed  ^^° 
Ruef's  request  that  the  sale  of  hquors  in  "French  Res- 
taurant" bedrooms  be  continued. 

The  opposing  commissioner  out  of  the  way,  the  board 
by  a  vote  of  two  to  one,  adopted  certain  rules  submitted 
by  Ruef  for  the  management  of  French  Restaurants.^^^ 
By  the  same  vote,  the  commission  then  granted  the 
French-Restaurant  licenses,  action  upon  which  had  so 
long  been  delayed. 

All  this  was  done  before  the  public.  There  were,  of 
course,  charges  of  graft  and  extortion,  which  most  peo- 
ple, although  without  definite  proof,  believed.  Heney, 
nearly  a  year  later,  in  his  speech  in  the  Partridge 
campaign,  referred  to  in  a  previous  chapter,  charged 
graft.  A  Grand  Jury  had  made  ^"^  an  honest  attempt 
to  get  to  the  bottom  of  the  scandal.  The  efforts  of  this 
early  Grand  Jury  came  to  nothing. 

120  Commisioner  Harry   W.    Hutton. 

121  These  Ruef-provided  rules  directed  that  no  liquors  be  served 
in  supper  bedrooms  on  the  first  and  second  floors  of  tlie  establish- 
ments, and  required  tlie  French  restaurants  to  take  out  hotel 
licenses  and  to  keep  registers  the  same  as  hotels.  What  the 
keepers  of  the  places  thought  of  the  regulations  came  out  at  the 
Schmitz  trial.  Joe  Malfanti  of  Delmonico's,  for  example,  testified: 
"They  (the  Ruef  rules)  made  no  change  in  the  running  of  my 
business — not  a  single  change.  I  had  a  hotel  license  for  years 
before  and  I  always  had  a  register,  so  there  was  no  change  in  my 
place  whatever." 

122  The  Andrews  Grand  Jury,  named  from  its  foreman,  T.  P. 
Andrews.  The  work  of  the  Andrews  Grand  Jury  was  not  lost, 
however.  It  served  as  basis  for  much  of  the  investigation  con- 
ducted by  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury. 


Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted  113 

The  Oliver  Grand  Jury  had  not  been  in  session  a 
fortnight,  however,  before  the  whole  miserable  story  of 
Ruef's  connection  with  the  French  Restaurant  cases  had 
been  spread  before  it. 

Thomas  Regan,  who  had  served  as  Police  Commis- 
sioner during  the  Schmitz  administration,  testified  that 
as  early  as  the  summer  of  1904  Schmitz  had  told  him 
that  the  "French  Restaurants"  were  bad  places  and 
should  not  be  permitted  to  exist.  When  Tortoni's  was 
closed,  Schmitz  stated  to  Regan,  according  to  Regan's 
testimony,  that  the  French  Restaurants  were  all  run 
alike,  and  should  all  be  closed.  Acting  upon  the  Mayor's 
suggestion,  the  Police  Commission  ordered  the  investi- 
gation into  the  methods  of  the  French  Restaurants  which 
created  such  a  sensation  in  San  Francisco  during  the 
closing  months  of  1904.  Licenses  were  denied  in  some 
cases.  In  others,  hearings  of  applications  for  renewals 
were  postponed  from  time  to  time.  Some  proprietors 
were  called  upon  to  show  cause  why  their  licenses 
should  not  be  revoked.  Of  all  of  which,  Commissioner 
Regan  testified,  he  kept  Mayor  Schmitz  informed. 

The  course  of  the  commission  threw  the  keepers  of 
the  French  Restaurants  into  a  panic.  Their  attorneys 
found  themselves  helpless  and  could  give  their  clients  no 
encouragement.  Marcus  Rosenthal,  for  example,  who  ap- 
peared before  the  commission  on  January  3,  1905,  on  be- 
half of  the  Bay  State  Restaurant,  testified  at  the  Schmitz 
trial,  that  he  was  not  permitted  to  say  anything ;  that  the 
commissioners  would  not  listen  to  him,  nor  hear  testi- 
mony. After  that  meeting  he  had  advised  his  client, 
and  a  little  group  of  "French  Restaurant"  keepers  who 


114  Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted 

had  gathered  about  him,  that  it  would  be  useless  for 
them  to  appeal  to  any  court,  because  under  the  law 
there  could  be  no  review  of  the  action  of  the  Police 
Commissioners ;  that  the  commission  could  arbitrarily 
dispose  of  any  saloon-keeper,  and  he  could  not  seek 
remedy  in  the  courts. 

And  then,  having  explained  the  situation  fully,  Rosen- 
thal told  them,  what  every  observer  in  San  Francisco 
knew,  "There  is  only  one  man  who  could  help  you,  and 
that  is  Mr.  Ruef."  ^^^  The  French  Restaurant  keepers 
received  this  advice  from  all  sides.  Joe  Malfanti  testi- 
fied at  the  Schmitz  trial  that  "numerous  friends  advised 
me  to  see  Ruef." 

And  to  Mr.  Ruef  the  "French  Restaurant"  keepers 
finally  found  themselves  compelled  to  go — at  the  virgent 
suggestion  of  a  fellow  French  Restaurant  keeper,  Jean 
Loupy. 

Loupy  was  proprietor  of  the  French  Restaurant 
known  as  the  "Pup."  At  Loupy's  place  Ruef  maintained 
a  sort  of  headquarters.  There  he  took  his  dinner  prac- 
tically every  night,  entertained  friends  and  received  his 
henchmen. 

Ruef  had  from  time  to  time  acted  as  Loupy's  attor- 
ney.    He  had  also  loaned  Loupy  money.     At  the  time 


123  Rosenthal  testified  at  the  Schmitz  trial:  "I  told  them  from 
my  observations  and  how  things  were  going-  in  the  city  and  had 
been  going  for  some  years,  that  there  was  only  one  man  who  could 
help  them — it  was  a  question  of  life  and  death  with  them— and  I 
said  there  is  only  one  man  who  could  help  you,  and  that  is  Mr. 
Ruef." 

Rosenthal,  when  examined  on  this  point  before  the  Grand  Jury, 
refused  to  testify  on  the  ground  that  conversation  between  attorney 
and  client  was  privileged.  Adler  got  into  trouble  with  the  Grand 
Jury  over  his  testimony  on  this  point.  Both  Rosenthal  and  Adler, 
however,    testified    at    Schmitz's    trial. 


Ruct  and  Schmitz  Indicted  115 

of  the  French  Restaurant  troubles,  Loupy,  according  to 
his  testimony,  owed  Ruef  $1000. 

When  the  closing  of  the  French  Restaurants  seemed 
inevitable,  this  Loupy  brought  word  to  the  French  Res- 
taurant proprietors  that  Ruef  would  represent  them  all 
before  the  Police  Commission  for  $7000  a  year,^^*  on  a 
contract  for  two  years.  The  sum  was  finally  cut  to 
$5000/==^  $10,000  for  the  two  years.  For  the  first  year 
"Marchand's,"  "Delmonico's,"  "The  New  Poodle  Dog" 
and  the  "Bay  State"  paid  $1175  each.  Loupy  for  the 
"Pup,"  on  the  grounds  that  he  had  been  put  to  considera- 
ble expense  and  was  a  poorer  man  than  the  others,  paid 
only  $300.^26 


124  N.  M.  Adler,  proprietor  of  the  Bay  State  Restaurant,  testified 
at  tlie  Schmitz  trial  as  to  Loupy's  negotiations.  Loupy  called  upon 
him  twice.  "The  first  time  he  came."  Adler  testified,  "he  told  me 
that  things  were  very  serious,  and  we  would  have  to  put  up  some 
money  and  hire  Mr.  Ruef;  that  he  was  the  only  man  that  could 
help  us.  I  told  him  that  I  could  not  understand  the  proposition; 
that  I  had  run  my  business  for  twenty  years,  and  didn't  think  that 
they  could  do  me  any  harm.  At  that  time  Ruef  was  making  his 
headquarters  at  the  Pup  restaurant.  I  could  see  that  from  my 
place  across  the  street.    He  went  there  regularly." 

Then  Adler  testified  to  the  meeting  before  the  Police  Commis- 
sioners at  which  his  attorney,  Rosenthal,  had  not  been  permitted 
to  speak,  and  continued:  "Afterwards,  Loupy  came  to  me  again, 
and  told  me  that  Tortoni  had  closed  up,  and  that  we  should  put  up 
the  money  or  we  would  be  all  closed.  This  was  after  we  had  been 
to  the  meeting  of  the  Police  Commissioners." 

125  The  testimony  brought  out  at  the  graft  trials  showed  that 
Ruef  received  $8500  from  the  French  restaurants,  $5000  the  first 
year  from  the  five  in  the  combine;  $3000  the  second,  and  $500  addi- 
tional from  Cam.ille  Mailhebeau.  Ruef  stated  to  Henev  later  and 
so  testified  at  the  Schmitz  trial,  that  half  of  the  $8000  received 
from  the  combine  he   turned  over  to  Schmitz. 

120  The  five  restaurant  keepers  were  asked  at  the  Schmitz  trial 
whether  they  had  employed  Ruef  because  he  was  a  lawyer  or 
because  of  his  recognized  power  as  political  boss.  They  testified 
as  follows: 

A.  B.  Blanco  of  the  "New  Poodle  Dog" — "Well,  being  a  political 
Vtoss  we  thought  he  had  infiuence  enough  to  get  our  licenses." 

N.  M.  Adler,  of  the  "Bay  State"— "Well,  the  way  I  took  it,  Mr. 
Ruef  is  a  boss.  ITe  had  an  influence  over  the  commission.  He  was 
the  only  man  who  could  help  us."  On  cross-examination:  "I 
understood    that    if    I    did    not    employ    Ruef    I    would    not    get    my 


ii6  Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted 

The  money  being  paid  over  to  Ruef,"^  Ruef  ap- 
peared before  the  PoHce  Commissioners,  as  has  already 
been  told,  with  his  plan  for  regulating  the  French  Res- 
taurant business  in  San  Francisco. 

Ruef's    arrangements    with    the    French    Restaurant 


license.  I  understood  that  Mr.  Ruef  was  the  only  man  who  could 
get  my  license." 

Michel  Debret  of  "Marchand's" — "Well,  I  agreed  to  (pay  the 
money  to  Ruef)  because  having  consulted  we  saw  we  had  no  way 
to  get  out  of  it  unless  we  paid  Ruef,  as  he  was  a  political  boss,  to 
protect  ourselves."  "Because  we  thought^we  thought  if  we  didn't 
pay  the  money  we  would  be  treated  like  Tortoni's,  we  would  be 
closed;  we  had  no  way  to  get  out  of  it."  "I  believed  that  Ruef 
and  the  Mayor  controlled  the  Police  Commissioners." 

Joe  Malfanti  of  "Delmonlco's" — "I  did  not  pay  this  $1175  for 
fun;  I  had  to  save  my  license.  I  had  about  $400,000  invested  there. 
I  never  figured  on  what  effect  it  would  have  upon  my  business  if  I 
did  not  get  a  license.  If  it  was  for  myself  alone  I  would  close 
the  place,  but  I  figured  on  my  partners,  what  they  had  paid.  They 
had  a  lease  for  five  years  and  could  not  go  thi-ough  with  it  and  I 
did  it  as  a  favor.  If  I  was  alone  I  would  close.  I  would  not 
make  any  fight.  Numerous  friends  advised  me  to  see  Ruef."  "I 
went  to  Ruef — Ruef  was  the  man  that  controlled  the  administra- 
tion— Ruef  was  the  one  that  could  do  the  thing.  His  relation  with 
the  Mayor  was  so  he  could  do   what  he  pleased." 

Jean  Loupy  was  asked  by  Heney:  "Did  you  go  to  him  (Ruef) 
because  he  was  a  lawyer  or  because  he  was  a  political  boss?" 
"Because  he  was  a  political  boss,"   replied  Loupy. 

127  Ruef  would  not  take  a  check,  neither  would  he  accept  gold 
— he  insisted  upon  having  currency — neither  would  he  give  a  re- 
ceipt. The  money  was  taken  to  him  by  Pierre  Prlet,  a  French- 
restaurant  keeper.  Regarding  the  transfer  of  the  money,  Joe 
Malfanti,  at  the  Schmitz  trial,  gave  the  following  testimony: 

"Mr.  Heney — Q.  What  did  he  say  you  were  to  get  for  the  five 
thousand  dollars,   Priet?     A.     Yes. 

"Q.  Yes,  what  did  Priet  say  you  were  to  get  for  your  money? 
A.     We  were  going  to  get  the  license. 

"Q.  For  two  years?  A.  No,  we  were  going  to  have  no  trouble 
for  two  years  about  a  license. 

"Q.     Five  thousand  dollars  a  year?    A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Now,  then,  what  was  said  about  how  the  money  was  to  be 
paid?  What  did  Priet  say  about  how  the  money  was  to  be  paid? 
A.     In  currency. 

"Mr.  Campbell — That  is  under  the  same  objection  and  exception. 

"The  Witness — And  that  two  people,  not  three,  only  two  people, 
not  three. 

"Mr.  Heney — Q.  What  do  you  mean,  that  no  one  was  to  go 
with  him  to  Ruef?     A.     Yes. 

"The  Witness — Prlet  said  the  money  should  be  brought  there  In 
currency  and  paid  with  two  people. 

"Q.  Did  Priet  get  you  a  receipt?  A.  I  don't  think  he  ever 
looked  for  any.  I  asked  him  about  that  when  he  came  back.  He 
said:  'Well,  you  should  be  glad  to  get  his  word  of  honor.'  That 
is  what  I  got  from  Priet." 


Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted  117 

keepers  were  concluded  during  the  first  week  jn  January. 
Police  Commissioner  Regan  testified  that  sometime  after 
January  3,  Mayor  Schmitz  asked  him  to  vote  to  restore 
the  French  Restaurant  licenses. ^^^  Regan  objected  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  not  right  to  ask  him  to  vote  first 
one  way  and  then  another.  With  Commissioners  Regan 
and  Hutton  voting  against  issuing  the  licenses,  the  li- 
censes could  not  be  granted.  Either  Hutton  or  Regan 
had  to  change  their  attitude,  or  one  of  them  had  to  be 
removed  from  office.  Police  Commissioner  F.  F.  Poheim 
testified  at  the  Schmitz  trial  that  at  a  conference  on  the. 
French  Restaurant  problem  held  early  in  January.  1905, 
which  he  and  Schmitz  attended.  Schmitz  announced : 
"We  will  have  to  give  these  people  (the  French  Res- 
taurant proprietors)  their  licenses  if  we  can.  If  we 
cannot  do  anything  else  we  will  have  to  remove  Hutton." 
And  during  the  week  following  Ruef's  first  appear- 
ance before  the  commissioners  as  representative  of  the 
French  Restaurants,  Mayor  Schmitz  removed  Hutton.^^^ 


128  Regan  testified  at  the  Schmitz  trial: 

"The  Mayor  asked  me  to  vote  for  the  French  liquor  licenses. 
The  first  time  he  did  so  he  put  it  on  political  grounds.  He  re- 
quested me  to  vote  for  them,  saying  it  would  hurt  him  politically 
if  the  license  was  not  granted;  and  that  they  had  so  many  friends 
and  so  many  rich  people  frequented  those  places  that  it  would  be 
a  very  unpopular  thing  to  take  the  licenses  away,  and  he  re- 
quested me  to  vote  for  them.  That  it  would  be  unpopular  to  take 
them,  the  licenses,  away,  as  they,  the  restaurants,  had  so  many 
friends  and  so  many  rich  people  frequented  the  places.  I  said  I 
didn't  think  it  was  right,  that  he  knew  he  got  me  to  close  those 
places  up.  That  I  could  not  vote  for  them,  as  they  were  immoral 
and  should  be  closed.  The  second  conversation  was  all  of  the  same 
tenor." 

129  Commissioner  Poheim  took  papers  from  Ruef's  oflfice  to  the 
Mayor  on  the  day  of  Hutton's  removal.  Poheim  testified  at  the 
Scl'.mltz  trial: 

"I  took  papers  from  Mr.  Ruef's  ofRce  that  I  believe  were  th« 
pnpers  of  removal.  TTe  told  me  that  they  were.  That  was  the  day 
of   Ifiiitiin's  removal." 


ii8  Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted 

The  licenses  were  then  issued  to  the  "French  Restaurant" 
keepers. ^^^ 

Much  of  the  story  of  these  transactions  was  presented 
to  the  Grand  Jury.  But  the  evidence  was  not  secured 
without  effort.  Many  of  the  witnesses  were  unfriendly; 
others  afraid  of  the  consequences  of  frank  statement  of 
facts.  Witnesses  disappeared  and  could  not  be  found. 
Several  known  to  have  testified  were  threatened  and  even 
assaulted.  One  French  Restaurant  keeper,  before  the 
investigation  had  been  concluded,  had  been  indicted  for 
perjury.  Three  attorneys  who  were  more  or  less  in 
touch  with  the  tenderloin  situation  had  been  cited  for 
contempt  for  refusing  to  answer  questions  put  to  them 
in  the  Grand  Jury  room.  But  point  by  point  the  evi- 
dence was  presented. 

130  The  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  February  1,  1907,  thus  sum- 
marized the  evidence  against  Schmitz  and  Ruef,  and  the  nature  of 
their  defense: 

"Those  operations  are  these:  Tliere  are  in  this  as  in  all  other 
cities  certain  dens  of  vice,  rang^ing  from  the  very  fashionable  down 
to  those  patronized  by  the  dregs  of  society,  which  can  exist  only 
when  licensed  to  sell  liquor.  To  give  or  withhold  the  license  Is 
within  the  discretion  of  the  Police  Commissioners,  and  from  their 
action  there  is  no  effectual  appeal.  Since  Ruef  got  control  of  the 
majority  of  these  commissioners  they  have  been  mere  puppets, 
giving  or  withholding  the  licenses  of  these  places  as  directed  by 
Schmitz.  That  being  the  case,  when  renewals  of  licenses  were 
necessary,  the  applicants  were  refused.  That  meant  the  ruin  of 
their  business.  In  the  end,  either  from  their  general  knowledge, 
or  because  as  advised,  they  applied  to  Ruef.  When  the  fee  was 
settled  and  paid — in  the  case  of  the  French  restaurants  $5,000  a 
year — Ruef  notified  Schmitz,  who,  as  the  prosecution  is  evidently 
prepared  to  prove,  then  directed  the  licenses  to  issue,  and  they 
were  issued.  In  the  aggregate,  enormous  sums  were  annually 
collected  from  these  places  by  Ruef  or  his  agents,  and  without 
that  payment  they  covild  not  have  continued  business.  The  reve- 
nues thus  obtained  were  evidently  the  sources  of  Schmitz's  sud- 
denly acquired  wealth.  Presumably  some  small  share  was  paid  to 
the  subordinates. 

"Certainly  that  is  extortion,  and  extortion  of  the  most  villainous 
kind.  To  the  ordinary  reader  it  Is  completely  covered  by  the  lan- 
guage of  the  statute.  The  contention  of  Ruef  and  Schmitz  is  not 
that  they  did  not  get  the  money,  or  that  it  was  not  a  villainous 
thing,  but  merely  that  It  was  not  a  villainy  expressly  forbidden  by 
statute,  and  that  therefore  to  indict  them  for  it  is  'persecution.' 
If  there  are  any  people  in  the  city  who  uphold  or  condone  such 
things  they  are  no  better  than  Ruef  or  Schmitz  themselves." 


Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted  119 

The  Grand  Jury,  on  the  evidence,  indicted  Schmitz 
and  Ruef  on  five  counts  for  extortion. ^^^  Bonds  were 
fixed  at  $10,000  on  each  charge,  $50,000  for  each  de- 
fendant. 

Ruef  '^-  was  released  on  $50,000  bail. 


131  The  press  throug-liout  the  State  was  a  unit  in  approving  the 
Grand  .Iiirv"s  action.  Tl.e  San  Francisco  Chronicle  fairly  expressed 
the  general  sentiment.     It  said: 

"Every  decent  man  in  San  Francisco  breathes  freer  to-day. 
The  fact  cannot  be  concealed  tiiat  there  was  an  uneasy  feeling  in 
the  community  that  the  machinations  of  the  boss  would  again  se- 
cure immunity  for  himself  and  those  who  were  with  him  in  the 
grafting  business.  The  facility  with  which  he  turned  the  Grand 
Jury  preceding  the  present  one  into  an  instrument  to  accomplish 
his  own  purposes  inspired  the  fear  that  by  hook  or  crook  he  may 
have  obtained  control  of  the  one  now  sitting;  but  the  promptitude 
with  which  the  first  indictment  was  brought  allays  all  apprehen- 
sion and  converts  it  into  confidence  that  the  body  now  in  session 
is  in  deadly  earnest  and  that  it  will  earn  the  gratitude  of  its  fel- 
low citizens  and  cover  itself  with  glory  by  striking  an  effective 
blow  which  will  put  an  end  to  flagrant  venality  in  offlce  and  re- 
store the  good  name  of  San  Francisco." 

The  San  Francisco  Examiner  said  of  the  Indictment  of  Schmitz 
and  Ruef:  "The  light  breaks,  the  reign  of  political  terror  seems 
at  an  end.  Mayor  Eugene  E.  Schmitz  and  Abe  Ruef,  his  mentor 
and  master,  have  been  indicted  for  extortion.  The  move  of  polit- 
ical regeneration  and  civic  reform  that  has  been  sweeping  the 
country  has  hit  San  Francisco  with  the  force  of  all  the  other  suc- 
cesses behind  it.  In  other  cities  and  other  States  the  powerful 
rascols  as  well  as  their  satellites  have  been  sent  to  prison.  Evi- 
dently San  Francisco  and  California  are  to  rid  themselves  of  the 
arch  political  criminals.  .  .  .  Thursday,  November  15,  1906  (the 
day  on  which  Ruef  and  Schmitz  were  indicted),  is  a  day  to  be  re- 
membered. It  marks  the  beginning  of  San  Francisco's  regenera- 
tion. It  is  a  day  of  heroic  events  to  be  told  to  children  and 
grandchildren.  It  is  the  day  of  the  declaration  of  independence  of 
California's  great  metropolis." 

132  Ruef  denounced  his  indictment  as  absurd,  insisting  that  he 
had  merely  taken  fees  for  services  rendered.  In  an  interview  pub- 
lished in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  of  November  16,  1906,  he  said: 

"The  whole  thing  is  absurd.  I  was  simply  acting  in  the  relation 
of  attorney  to  a  client.  I  took  my  fee  for  rendering  legal  services. 
I  was  retained  by  a  contract  as  attorney  by  the  restaurant  keepers. 
If  it  is  extortion  for  an  attorney  to  accept  a  fee  from  his  client, 
we  all  might  as  well  go  out  of  business.  This  is  exactly  the  same 
charge  that  was  made  against  me  once  before  and  was  found  base- 
less.    I  have  nothing  to  fear." 

On  November  17  the  Chronicle,  touching  upon  Ruef's  defense, 
said:  "Every  branch  of  the  city  government  which  is  controlled 
by  Ruef  men  is  known  to  be  utterly  rotten.  The  only  question  has 
been  whether  under  the  advice  and  direction  of  low  legal  cunning, 
the  grafters  have  kept  themselves  immune  from  the  law.  .And  the 
i)UPstlon  is  about  to  be  settled." 


I20  Ruef  and  Schmitz  Indicted 

Schmitz,  the  day  after  the  indictments  were  brought, 
was  reported  to  have  started  for  home  from  Europe. 

Schmitz's  probable  reception  on  his  arrival  at  New 
York  apparently  gave  keen  anxiety  at  San  Francisco. 

Heney  states  that  Justice  F.  W.  Henshaw  called  at 
his  ( Heney 's)  office  and  asked  Heney,  as  a  favor,  to  tell 
him  whether  Schmitz  would  be  arrested  upon  his  arrival 
in  New  York,  as  William  J.  Dingee  of  the  Contra  Costa 
Water  Company,  wanted  to  arrange  for  Schmitz's  bail 
in  New  York  City.  William  F.  Herrin  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  Company  is  credited  with  interesting  himself  in 
Schmitz's  behalf  in  arranging  for  the  bond  that  was 
furnished  when  Schmitz  reached  San  Francisco. 
Schmitz's  bond  was  furnished  by  Dingee  and  Thomas 
Williams,  president  of  the  New  California  Jockey  Club. 
The  New  California  Jockey  Club  operated  the  notorious 
Emeryville  racing  and  gambling  establishment.  Mr. 
Dingee  was  at  the  time  one  of  California's  most  promi- 
nent capitalists. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Fight  to  Evade  Trial. 

The  indictments  against  Schmitz  and  Ruef  were  re- 
turned November  15.  Schmitz  reached  San  Francisco 
on  his  return  from  Europe  on  November  29.^^^  He  at 
once  joined  with  Ruef  in  the  fight  to  prevent  the  issue 
raised  by  his  indictment  being  presented  to  a  trial  jury. 

133  On  his  arrival  in  New  York  after  being  Indicted  for  extortion 
In  the  French  Restaurant  cases,  Mayor  Schmitz  in  an  interview 
widely  published  at  the  time  gave  his  attitude  toward  the  French 
Restaurants.  The  Mayor  explained  that  these  restaurants  had  ex- 
isted so  long-  in  the  city  that  they  had  become  a  recognized  adjunct 
of  a  gay  life  of  a  gay  town.  He  had  not  favored  their  suppression, 
and  whenever  the  Police  Commissioners  agitated  the  revoking  of 
their  liquor  licenses,   he  had  opposed  them. 

"The  French  restaurants  did  no  great  harm,"  he  is  quoted  as 
saying,  "and  to  destroy  them  would  be  to  ruin  the  men  who  had 
invested  money  in  them."  The  character  of  some  of  the  heavy  in- 
vestors in  these  establishments  was  brought  out  in  the  report  of 
the  commission  appointed  by  Mayor  E.  R.  Taylor  to  ascertain 
causes  of  municipal  corruption  in  San  Francisco,  as  disclosed  by 
the  investigations  of  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury.     The  report  set  forth: 

"The  business  (of  the  French  restaurants)  is  very  prosperous, 
and,  as  is  usual,  the  landlord  shares  in  its  prosperity.  People  of 
social  prominence  were  known  to  accept  a  portion  of  the  profits 
of  such  establishments,  througli  the  extremely  liberal  rentals  paid, 
and  the  system  is  received  with  easy  toleration.  One  of  tlie  largest 
of  these  assignation  places  was  located  on  a  prominent  corner  of 
the  downtown  shopping  district  where  hundreds  of  women  daily 
passed  its  doors.  The  building,  five  stories  in  height,  had  four 
stories  devoted  to  tlie  private  supper  bedrooms.  The  land  was 
owned  in  trust  by  one  of  the  largest,  if  not  the  largest,  trust  com- 
pany in  the  West.  A  lease  was  sought  and  obtained  by  a  man  no- 
torious in  the  line  of  business  above  described;  the  building  was 
constructed  by  the  trust  company  according  to  plans  satisfactory 
to  him  for  this  purpose,  and  the  enterprise  was  conducted  there  for 
seven  years  until  the  building  was  destroyed  by  fire.  The  signifi- 
cant thing  about  such  a  transaction  is,  not  that  there  are  people 
wh»  are  willing  to  accept  money  from  sucli  a  source,  or  financiers 
willing  to  put  trust  moneys  to  such  uses,  but  that  the  facts,  though 
well  known,  did  not  seem  to  detract  in  the  slightest  from  the  social 
recognition  accorded  to  the  persons  so  taking  a  sliare  of  the  profits, 
while  the  ofllcer  of  the  trust  company  whicli  made  the  lease  of  that 
particular  house  situated  in  the  shopping  district,  was  appointed  a 
regent  of  the  State  University." 


122  Fight  to  Evade  7>ial 

The  two  defendants  were  to  have  been  arraigned  on 
December  3,  but  at  their  earnest  solicitation  arraign- 
ment ^^*  was  continued  until  December  6. 

On  that  day  the  plans  of  the  defendants  became  ap- 
parent. It  was  seen  that  they  would  divide  the  defense, 
demanding  separate  trials ;  and  it  was  quite  as  evident 
that  their  first  move  would  be  an  attack  upon  the  validity 
of  the  Grand  Jury. 

Attorneys  Frank  C.  Drew  and  John  J.  Barrett  ap- 
peared for  Schmitz,  while  Ruef  was  represented  by 
Samuel  M.  Shortridge  and  Henry  Ach.  At  the  close  of 
the  proceedings,  Ach  asked  that  subpoenas  be  issued  for 
the  members  of  the  Grand  Jury  to  appear  in  court  the 
following  Monday  to  testify  for  the  defendants.  This 
meant  the   examination  of  the  Grand  Jurors   for  bias. 


134  During  the  reading  of  the  first  of  the  five  indictments, 
Schmitz  stood,  but  Ruef  remained  seated.  When  the  second  indict- 
ment was  read,  both  the  defendants  Icept  their  seats.  Heney  de- 
manded to  know  what  was  going  on.  Judge  Dunne  announced  that 
the  arraignment  must  proceed  as  in  ordinary  cases.  During  the 
reading  of  the  remaining  indictments  both  defendants  remained 
standing,  but  Ruef  kept  his  back  turned  toward  the  coxirt.  Com- 
menting upon  this  incident,  the  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  December 
8,   1906,  said  in  an  editorial  article: 

"In  Judge  Dunne's  court  a  rogue  on  trial  insolently  refused  to 
stand  and  be  arraigned  like  any  other  criminal,  apparently  on  the 
assumption  that  a  political  boss  was  above  the  courts.  He  was 
finally  compelled  to  stand  and  let  his  shame  be  seen.  He  sat,  how- 
ever, through  one  arraignment,  and  the  people  have  reason  to  com- 
plain that  the  trial  Judge  did  not  earlier  enforce  the  respect  due  to 
the  majestj'  of  the  law.  In  another  instance  there  is  a  more  grave 
offense.  A  lawyer  presumed  to  bandy  words  with  the  Judge  on 
the  bench,  and  is  reported  to  have  said  to  the  Court  in  a  loud  and 
insolent  tone,  evincing  evident  disrespect,  'And  I  have  heard  con- 
siderable oratory  from  you.'  Nothing  was  done  about  it,  and  Judge 
Dunne  owes  it  to  the  people  to  explain  why  he  did  not  promptly 
commit  the  insolent  fellow  to  jail.  The  Judge  on  the  bench  repre- 
sents the  majesty  of  the  law.  He  sits  for  the  people  in  solemn 
judgment  on  offenders.  He  is  expected  to  enforce  due  respect  for 
the  tribunal,  and  for  that  purpose  is  invested  with  the  power  of 
summary  punishment  for  contempt.  Our  alleged  administration  of 
criminal  justice  is  disgraceful,  and  the  evil  permeates  the  entire 
machinery,  from  the  policeman  on  his  beat  to  the  highest  tribunal." 


Fight  to  Evade  Trial  123 

The   long  technical   fight  to   disqualify   the  Grand   Jury 
had  opened.  ^^' 

In  the  attack  upon  the  Grand  Jury,  Joseph  C.  Camp- 
bell joined  with  Schmitz's  attorneys,  Drew  and  Barrett, 
while  Frank  J.  Murphy  and  Charles  H.  Fairall  appeared 
with  Shortridge  and  Ach  for  Ruef.  Ach,  in  moving  to 
set  aside  or  quash  the  indictments,  stated  that  the  motion 
was  made  for  Schmitz  and  Ruef  jointly,  but  that  the 
defendants  reserved  the  right  to  plead  and  to  be  tried 
separately. 

135  The  attack  upon  the  Grand  Jury  had,  however,  been  begun 
the  day  before,  and  was  progressing  in  another  department  of  the 
court  even  as  Ruef  and  Schmitz  were  arraigned.  Investigation  into 
graft  conditions  had  by  this  time  got  beyond  the  tenderloin.  Sev- 
eral minor  indictments  had  been  brought.  Supervisor  Fred  P. 
Nicholas  had  been  indicted  for  accepting  a  bribe  of  $26.10.  As 
chairman  of  the  Public  Building  and  Grounds  Committee,  the  Grand 
Jury  found  he  had  accepted  a  10  per  cent,  commission  on  $261 
worth  of  furniture  purchased  for  the  city.  Several  witnesses 
had  been  indicted  for  perjury  in  connection  with  the  graft  in- 
vestigation. That  the  investigation  was  going  far  was  now  con- 
ceded. The  defense  concentrated  to  disqualify  the  Grand  Jury.  On 
behalf  of  Nicholas  and  Duffy,  the  Grand  Jurors  were  haled  into 
Judge  William  P.  Lawlor's  court  December  5,  the  day  before 
Schmitz  and  Ruef  were  arraigned.  The  defendants  were  repre- 
sented by  Frank  J.  Murphy,  who  was  to  play  a  prominent  part  in 
the  graft  defense.  The  following  taken  from  the  examination  of 
Foreman  B.  P.  Oliver,  as  printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle 
of  December  7,   is  a  fair  sample  of  the  nature  of  the  inquiry: 

"Did  you  say  to  anyone  that  this  is  just  the  beginning  of  the 
investigation  of  municipal  corruption?" 

"I  have  said  that  from  the  statements  I  have  heard  in  the  Grand 
Jury  room  that  the  corruption  of  the  municipal  administration  was 
so  great  that  the  present  Grand  Jury  could  hardly  expect  to  make 
any  impression  upon  it.  As  to  when  and  where  I  made  that  state- 
ment I  cannot  tell,"  replied  Oliver,  who  proceeded:  "As  to  myself, 
the  mere  testimony  I  have  heard  in  the  Grand  Jury  room  has  filled 
me  with  horror  and  disgust." 

"Does  it  fill  you  with  such  horror  that  you  believe  everyone  con- 
nected with  tlie  administration  is  corrupt?"  asked  Lawyer  Fairall 
of  counsel  for  the  defense.  "I  do  not  believe  anyone  to  be  corrupt 
until  he  is  proved  to  be  so." 

"Could  you  act  fairly  and  impartially,  as  a  Grand  Juror,  while 
having  your  present  feeling  of  horror  and  disgust?"  "Yes,  abso- 
lutely so,  for  I  have  a  conscience." 

"You  feel  that  your  conscience  would  enable  you  to  act  fairly?" 
"I  do.  If  I  erred  at  all  it  would  be  on  the  other  side,  so  as  to  be 
sure  that  I  did  tlie  accused  no  injustice." 

This  examination  went  on  for  several  days.  The  ."ame  examina- 
tion of  the  Grand  Jurors  followed  in  the  case  of  Ruef  and  Schmitz, 
and  was  repeated  for  the  third  time  on  behalf  of  public-service  cor- 
poration agents  who  were  indicted  later. 


124  Fight  to  Evade  Trial 

Ach's  motion  was  based  on  nineteen  counts.  The 
point  most  insisted  upon  was  that  Grand  Juror  Wallace 
Wise  was  disqualified  because,  of  his  having  been  on  a 
petty  trial  jury  panel  during  the  current  year.  Wise, 
being  thus  disqualified,  Ach  argued,  the  whole  indict- 
ment failed  as  much  as  though  the  whole  nineteen  Grand 
Jurors  were  disqualified.^^* 

Judge  Dunne,  after  a  three  days'  hearing,  swept 
aside  the  multitude  of  technical  objections  which  the  va- 
rious attorneys  for  the  defense  had  advanced.  In  par- 
ticular did  he  refuse  to  declare  the  whole  nineteen 
Grand  Jurors  disqualified,  because  of  the  alleged  dis- 
qualification of  Juror  Wise. 

The  prosecution  had  gained  another  point  in  its  fight 
to  bring  the  defendants  to  trial  on  the  merits  of  their 
cases. 

But  the  attack  upon  the  Grand  Jury  had  scarcely 
begun.  After  Judge  Dunne's  ruling,  the  nineteen  Grand 
Jurors  were  to  be  put  on  the  stand  and  examined  one 
by  one  for  bias.^^^     The  defense  went  further,  and  had 

136  The  question  of  the  eligibility  of  Grand  Juror  Wise  was 
finally  decided  by  the  State  Supreme  Court  in  the  matter  of  the 
application  of  A.  Ruef  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  (150  California, 
p.  665.)  The  Court  held  that  the  presence  on  the  Grand  Jury  of  a 
member  who  had  served  and  been  discharged  as  a  juror  by  a  court 
of  record  within  a  year  of  the  time  that  he  had  been  summoned 
and  impaneled  to  act  as  a  grand  juror  does  not  affect  the  validity 
of  an  indictment  found  by  the  Grand  Jury. 

137  The  Chi-onicle,  in  its  issue  of  December  18,  1906,  said  of  the 
attack  upon  the  Grand  Jury: 

"The  fact  that  the  felons  whom  we  are  trying  to  convict  are 
officials  has  nothing  to  do  with  their  demonstration  of  the  fact  that 
it  is  impossible,  under  the  laws,  to  put  thieves  in  the  penitentiary, 
when  there  is  a  large  band  rounded  up  at  one  time  and  they  all 
fight.  Under  our  laws  the  half-dozen  rascals  who  have  already  been 
Indicted  for  their  share  in  the  orgy  of  official  plunder  in  this  city 
can  block  our  criminal  courts.  The  disgraceful  farce  of  putting 
the  Grand  Jurors  and  the  District  Attorney  on  trial  instead  of  the 
scoundrels  who  have  been  indicted  can  apparently  be  protracted 
for  weeks.     Happily  the  Legislature  meets  early  next  month,  and  If 


Fight  to  Evade  Trial  125 

Rudolph  Spreckels  up  to  question  him  as  to  his  motives 
in  guaranteeing  a  fund  for  the  investigation  of  graft 
conditions. ^^^  District  Attorney  Langdon  was  also 
placed  on  the  stand  to  be  examined  as  to  his  motive  in 
appointing  Heney  his  assistant.  He  denied  most  em- 
phatically that  he  had  appointed  Heney  for  the  sole  pur- 
pose of  instituting  criminal  proceedings  against  Ruef  and 
Schmitz. 

The  examination  of  Grand  Jurors,  prosecutors  and 
citizens  lasted  from  December  17  until  January  22.  On 
the  last  named  date,  Judge  Dunne  denied  the  motion  to 
set  aside  the  indictments  for  bias.  The  prosecution  had 
gained  another  step  toward  bringing  the  defendants  to 
trial. 

Judge  Dunne  stated  that  he  was  ready  to  set  the 
cases  for  trial  the  next  day.     But  the  defendants  had 

it  does  not  pvit  a  speedy  end  to  it  we  are  mistalcen.  We  are  get- 
ting an  object  lesson  whicli,  perhaps,  was  needed.  The  whole  mis- 
erable machinery  of  obstruction  must  be  swept  away.  Whoever  is 
indicted  by  a  Grand  Jury  must  go  to  trial,  unless,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  trial  Judge,  extraordinary  conditions  indicate  that  some  Inquiry 
.•should  be  made  to  be  conducted  solely  by  himself.  The  public  will 
be  satisfied  with  nothing  short  of  that,  nor  will  it  be  satisfied  with 
that.     The  abuses  of  appeal  must  be  ended." 

138  Mr.  Spreckels  testified  in  part  as  follows:  "I  am  not  inter- 
ested in  the  downfall  of  any  man.  either  Eugene  E.  Schmitz  or 
Abraham  Ruef.  I  did  guarantee  the  sum  of  ?100,000  to  detect  any 
wrongdoing  whatsoever  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco.  I  indicated 
that  to  Mr.  Heney.  I  cannot  recollect  ns  to  dates,  but  I  think  it 
was  a  short  while  before  ttie  commencement  of  these  proceedings. 
It  was  since  the  calamity  of  April  IS.  I  had  been  interested  for  a 
long  while  before  that  in  starting  an  investigation.  ...  I  did 
not  guarantee  to  Mr.  Heney  $100,000,  but  I  did  guarantee  that  for 
the  purpose  of  investigation  for  the  collection  of  evidence,  I  would 
personally  guarantee  $100,000  for  the  expenses.  .  .  .  My  object 
was  merely  to  ascertain  the  truth  or  falsity  of  things  that  had 
be'^n  generally  stated.  Some  of  the  things  I  had  known  of  myself. 
I  knew  there  was  an  effort  made  in  tlie  city  here  of  doing  things 
in  the  past.  JTr.  Ruef.  himself,  had  had  a  conversation  with  me 
which  indicated  that  he  was  in  a  position  to  do  certain  things, 
and  knowing  these  things  I  was  willing  that  an  investigation  should 
proceed  to  the  bottom,  and  to  furnish  the  money  necessary  to  col- 
lect the  evidence.  I  have  stated  publicly  relative  to  this  fund  of 
?100,000." 


126  Fight  to  Evade  Trial 

another  delaying  play.  They  demurred  to  the  indict- 
ments. The  demurrers  were  not  disposed  of  until  Feb- 
ruary 18. 

In  the  meantime,  the  defense  had  made  several  com- 
plicating moves.  The  first  of  these  was  an  application 
to  Judge  Graham  to  have  the  case  against  Schmitz 
transferred  from  Judge  Dunne's  court.  At  the  same 
time  Schmitz  surrendered  himself  to  the  SheriflF,  and 
applied  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  cor- 
pus, and  a  writ  of  prohibition,  setting  up  the  points 
already  raised  in  Judge  Dunne's  court  against  the  indict- 
ments. The  Supreme  Court  finally  decided  against 
Schmitz. 

But  there  remained  another  way  of  having  the  case 
transferred  from  Judge  Dunne's  court.  The  law  gov- 
erning changes  of  venue  could  be  changed  by  the  Legis- 
lature. The  1907  Legislature  had  convened  early  in  Jan- 
uary. A  measure  was  introduced  in  both  Senate  and 
Assembly  under  the  terms  of  which  a  defendant  in  a 
criminal  action  was  permitted  to  secure  a  transfer  of  his 
case  from  one  court  to  another  by  merely  filing  affidavit 
of  his  belief  that  he  could  not  get  fair  trial  in  the  court 
in   which  his   case  was   pending.^^"     The  measure   was 

isn  The  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  January  17,  1907, 
said  of  the  Change  of  Venue  hill: 

"Assemblyman  Grove  L.  Johnson  of  Sacramento,  and  Senator  L. 
A.  "Wright  of  San  Diego,  have  introduced  identical  bills  which  pro- 
vide in  brief,  that  in  any  criminal  trial  the  accused  may  displace 
the  Judge  upon  his  mere  affidavit  that  he  'believes  he  cannot  have 
a  fair  and  impartial  trial.'  Upon  the  filing  of  such  an  affidavit  the 
services  of  some  other  Judge  must  be  secured,  provided  that  in 
counties  having  more  than  one  department  of  the  Superior  Court 
the  case  shall  be  transferred  to  some  other  department  of  the  same 
county.  The  bill  provides  that  the  act  shall  take  effect  immediately 
upon  its  passage.  The  obvious  intent  of  the  law  is  to  enable  the 
indicted  boodlers  of  this  city  to  select  the  Judge  who  shall  try  them, 
to  set  aside  all  that  has  thus  far  been  done  to  get  them  before  a 
jury  and  have  their  cases  retried  from  the  beginning." 


Fight  to  Evade  Trial  127 

known  as  the  "Change  of  Venue  Bill."  Its  chief  sup- 
porter in  the  Legislature  was  George  B.  Keane. 

Keane  was  not  only  clerk  of  the  Board  of  Supervis- 
ors, but  he  was  a  member  of  the  State  Senate  represent- 
ing a  San  Francisco  district.  Keane  championed  the 
"Change  of  Venue  Bill."  ^■'^  The  measure  passed  the 
Assembly,  but  failed  of  passage  in  the  Senate.  Ruef  in 
his  efforts  to  escape  trial  before  Judge  Dunne  had  lost 
again. 

Early  in  February,  when  the  efforts  of  Schmitz  and 
Ruef  to  evade  trial  were  being  pressed  the  hardest,  agita- 
tion against  the  Japanese  gave  Schmitz  opportunity  not 

140  Ruef  had,  as  early  as  1904,  secured  a  hold  on  the  State  Leg- 
islature, by  putting  up  and  elcting  a  Union  Labor  party  legislative 
ticket.  "I  told  the  legislators,"  said  Ruef  in  a  statement  published 
after  he  had  entered  San  Quentin  prison,  "to  vote  on  all  labor  ques- 
tions and  legislation  directly  involving  labor  interests  always  for 
the  labor  side.  I  told  them  on  all  other  questions  to  follow  the 
Herrin  program.  Herrin  was  appreciative.  He  expressed  his  sense 
of  obligation." — Abraham  Ruef's  "The  Road  I  Traveled,"  published 
in  San  Francisco  Bulletin,  Julv  6,  1912. 

Keane,  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437,  admitted 
that  he  had  supported  "The  Assembly  bill  providing  for  changes  of 
place  of  trial  In  certain  cases,"  at  the  special  request  of  Ruef.  See 
transcript  on  appeal,  part  3,  book  1,  pages  442-3.  Keane  was  also 
active  in  the  advocacy  of  other  measures  changing  the  law  govern- 
ing criminal  cases.  One  of  these  practically  forbade  public  comment 
on  a  criminal  trial  from  the  impaneling  of  the  Grand  Jury  until  the 
rendering  of  the  verdict.  Commenting  upon  this  anti-publicity  bill, 
E.  H.  Hamilton,  in  a  dispatch  from  Sacramento  to  the  San  Francisco 
Examiner,  published  in  that  paper  March  5,' 1907,  said:  "This  hill 
had  been  sneaked  through  the  Senate  the  other  night  when  no  one 
was  paying  any  attention,  but  Senator  Boynton  moved  to  reconsider 
the  vote  by  which  the  bill  v.'as  passed,  and  brought  up  the  matter 
to-day,  asking  that  the  bill  be  given  a  free  discussion  before  it  was 
acted  Tipon.  He  showed  that  it  was  directly  in  opposition  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the  Constitution  of  the  State, 
because  it  was  aimed  directly  at  the  freedom  of  the  press  and  in- 
tended to  prevent  newspapers  from  publishing  accounts  of  criminal 
trials. 

"Senator  Sanford  of  Mendocino  said  that  it  was  an  attempt  to 
muzzle  the  press  and  to  prevent  people  from  ascertaining  what  was 
going  on  in  criminal  lawsuits,  but  the  Senate  refused  to  reconsider 
the  vote  by  which  it  had  passed  the  unconstitutional  bill." 

Keane  also  pressed  an  amendment  to  the  codes  to  prevent  sten- 
ographers and  bookkeepers  testifying  against  their  employers.  Dur- 
ing the  discussion  in  the  Senate  Committee  on  the  Change  of  Venue 
bill,  Keane  offered  an  amendment  to  make  this  measure  take  effect 
immediately. 


128  Fight  to  Evade  Trial 

only  to  absent  himself  from  the  State,  thus  bringing  the 
proceedings  so  far  as  they  applied  to  him,  to  a  standstill, 
but  to  restore  his  prestige.  Schmitz  was  quick  to  avail 
himself  of  the  situation. 

The  question  of  admitting  Japanese  to  California 
schools  was  then  under  consideration  at  Washington. 
A  request  was  extended  the  San  Francisco  Board  of 
Education,  through  California  Congressmen,  that  the 
members  of  the  board  go  to  Washington  for  confer- 
ence with  the  government  authorities.  Members  of  the 
board  held  consultation  with  Schmitz,  after  which  word 
was  circulated  about  the  State  that  in  defense  of  the 
public  schools  against  the  Japanese,  Schmitz  must,  on 
behalf  of  San  Francisco  and  California,  go  to  Washing- 
ton. 

A  telegram  was  received  from  Congressman  Julius 
Kahn,  a  close  supporter  of  Ruef  and  Schmitz,  who  rep- 
resented a  San  Francisco  district  in  Congress,  stating 
that  "at  the  request  of  the  President  and  Secretary  of 
State  we  ask  you  to  come  here  immediately  for  a  con- 
ference with  them  and  the  California  delegation." 

Schmitz  started  for  Washington  on  February  3."^. 
He  was  absent  from  San  Francisco  until  March  6.  He 
did  not,  however,  as  had  been  predicted,  return  amid 
popular  acclaim.  The  outcome  of  the  Washington  nego- 
tiations was  not  satisfactory  to  California.     There  was 

141  On  the  way  across  San  Francisco  Bay  to  take  the  train  at 
Oakland,  in  the  words  of  newspaper  reports  of  the  incident,  mem- 
bers of  Mayor  Schmitz's  personal  following  who  accompanied  him, 
"were  frankly  delighted  with  the  prospect  of  the  indicted  Mayor 
returning  from  the  national  capital  covered  with  glory,  and  ac- 
claimed the  savior  of  the  country  from  a  war  with  Japsn." 

Ruef  regarded  the  incident  cynically.  "As  soon  as  Schmitz  got 
aboard  that  train,"  said  Ruef  on  the  day  of  the  Mayor's  departure, 
"the  nation  was  saved." 


Fight  to  Evade  Trial  129 

popular  belief  that  the  Mayor's  mission  had  failed.  At 
the  State  line  Schmitz  received  the  startling-  word  that 
Ruef  was  a  fugitive  from  justice;  that  Sheriff  O'Neil 
had  failed  to  discover  the  fugitive's  whereabouts  and  had 
been  disqualified.  During  the  month  of  his  absence 
from  San  Francisco,  the  Mayor  was  soon  to  learn,  events 
of  tremendous  importance  to  himself  and  to  his  admin- 
istration had  occurred. 


CHAPTER  XL 

RuEF  A  Fugitive. 

Three  months  ^*^  after  his  indictment  in  the  "French 
Restaurant"  extortion  cases — three  months  of  continuous 
fighting  to  evade  the  issue — Ruef  found  his  last  technical 
obstruction,  as  far  as  the  State  courts  were  concerned, 
swept  away,  and  was  forced  to  enter  his  plea  to  the 
charge  contained  in  the  indictment.  He  pleaded  "not 
guilty."     His  trial  was  set  for  March  5. 

Up  to  the  day  before  the  date  fixed  for  the  trial  to 
begin,  nothing  had  come  up  to  indicate  further  delay. 
On  March  4,  however,  Ruef's  bondsmen  surrendered 
him  into  the  custody  of  the  Sheriff.  Ruef  then  applied 
to  Superior  Judge  J.  C.  B.  Hebbard  for  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.  The  application  was  based  on  the  allegation 
dealt  with  in  a  previous  chapter,  that  Grand  Juror  Wise 
was  ineligible,  because  he  had  been  drawn  as  a  trial 
juror  within  a  year  before  the  impanelment  of  the 
Grand  Jury  of  which  he  was  a  member.  On  the  ground 
that  Wise  was  ineligible  for  Grand  Jury  service,  Ruef's 
attorneys  contended,  their  client's  restraint  was  in  viola- 
tion of  the  Fifth  and  Fourteenth  amendments  to  the 
Federal  Constitution,  thereby  raising  a  Federal  issue  and 
paving  the  way  for  appeal  to  the  Federal  courts. 

1^2  Ruef  and  S<"hmitz  were  indii^ted  November  15,  1906.  The  date 
of  nuef  s  plea  of  "Not  guilty"  v."as  February  18,  1907. 


Ruef  a  Fugitive  131 

In  opposing  Ruef's  new  move,  Hiram  W.  Johnson/*^ 
who  had  been  employed  to  assist  the  District  Attorney 
in  the  "graft"  prosecution,  pointed  out  that  the  cases 
named  in  the  petition  were  pending  in  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  the  Superior  Court;  that  they  were  set  for 
trial  the  following  day;  that  the  points,  including  the 
Federal  points,  had  been  made  subject  of  extensive  argu- 
ments before  Hebbard's  colleague.  Judge  Dunne,  and 
in  the  course  of  those  arguments  every  question  pre- 
sented in  the  proceedings  had  been  passed  upon. 

Ach,  representing  Ruef.  denied  that  the  Federal  ques- 
tion had  been  presented.  Johnson  insisted  that  it  had. 
An  unfortunate  scene  followed. ^^^  Hebbard  showed 
symptoms  of  intoxication.  Johnson,  Langdon  and 
Heney  finally  refused  to  participate  further  in  the  pro- 
ceedings and  walked  out  of  the  courtroom. ^^'^ 

143  Hiram  W.  Johnson  Is  a  native  of  California,  having  been 
born  at  Sacramento.  He  was  educated  at  the  Sacramento  public 
schools  and  the  University  of  Cnlifornia.  At  twenty-one  he  had 
been  admitted  to  practice  at  the  Cnlifornia  bar.  He  was  active  for 
years  a.arainst  the  corrupt  political  conditions  in  California  before 
he  came  into  prominence  as  one  of  the  prosecutors  at  the  graft 
trials.  In  1910  he  was  selected  to  lead  the  movement  asrainst  the 
political  machine  which  dominated  the  State.  As  primary  candi- 
date for  Republican  nomination  for  Governor,  he  visited  practically 
everv  community  in  California,  makinar  one  pledcre  to  be  carried 
out  in  the  event  of  his  election,  "to  kick  the  Southern  .Pacific  out 
of  political  control  of  the  State."  He  was  nominated  and  elected. 
His  ele-^tion  resulted  in  political  revolution  in  California.  CSee 
"Storv  of  the  California  Tyesrislature  of  1911"  and  "Story  of  the  Cali- 
fornia Tyesrislature  of  1913."")  He  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the 
Progressive  party  at  Chicago  in  1912,  and  was  that  year  candidate 
for  Vice-President  with  Roosevelt  on  the  National  Progressive 
ticket.  In  1914  he  was  re-elected  Governor  of  California  with  over- 
whelming vote  .Tobnson  is  the  first  Governor  since  1853  to  secure 
re-election  in  California. 

144  See  Heney's  affidavit  in  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.   S23. 

14.5  "Again  we  protest."  said  Johnson  \^'hen  the  final  break  came, 
"in  behalf  of  the  District  Attornev  of  this  citv  and  county,  and  in 
the  name  of  the  people  of  California.  'We  do  not  believe  in  this; 
we  will  not  participate  in  it;  and  we  take  our  leave  of  this  court. 
T\'e  T'n'll  not  participate  in  anv  proceeding  which  does  not.  accord- 
ing to  our  ideas,  comport  with  the  dignity  of  justice,  the  dlgriity 
of  this  court,  or  our  own  dignity." 


132  Ruef  a  Fugitive 

The  withdrawal  of  the  District  Attorney  and  his 
assistants  did  not  delay  Judge  Hebbard's  decision.  He 
denied  the  writ  Ruef  prayed  for,  but  he  allowed  an 
appeal  from  his  order  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  and  admitted  Ruef  to  bail  pending  that 
appeal. 

One  of  Ruef's  attorneys  filed  the  writ  of  error  issued 
by  Judge  Hebbard  with  the  clerk  of  the  Federal  Circuit 
Court.  May  2  was  set  as  the  date  for  the  appearance 
on  the  writ  of  error  before  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  at  Washington.^*® 

The  Aetna  Indemnity  Company  had  furnished  Ruef's 
bond.  This  company  surrendered  Ruef  to  the  Sheriff  in 
the  forenoon.  In  the  afternoon  it  furnished  the  bail  that 
had  been  imposed  by  Judge  Hebbard. 

Ruef,  in  Hebbard's  order  granting  him  opportunity 
to  take  his  case  to  the  Federal  Courts,  had  basis  for  fur- 
ther struggle  in  the  courts  to  evade  trial.  But  he  under- 
took a  new  move.  After  leaving  Hebbard's  courtroom 
on  the  afternoon  of  March  4,  Ruef  dropped  out  of  sight 
as  completely  as  though  the  earth  had  opened  and 
swallowed  him. 

For  three  days  the  regular  peace  officers  of  San 
Francisco  searched  San  Francisco  for  him  but  they  did 
not  find  him. 


146  On  March  25,  1907,  Ruef's  appeal  in  the  habeas  corpus  mat- 
ter was  dismissed  by  the  Supremo  Court  of  the  United  States.  Of 
this  move.  Frank  J.  Mumhy.  one  of  Ivuef's  attorneys,  is  quoted  in 
a  published  interview:  "We  have  instructed  our  representative  in 
Washington  to  withdraw  the  writ  of  error  filed  by  us.  This  de- 
cision was  reached  on  account  of  the  decision  of  the  State  Supreme 
Court  to  the  effect  thit  the  participation  of  an  incompetent  juror 
does  not  affect  the  validity  of  an  indictment." 

This  action  left  the  Prosecution  free  to  proceed  with  Ruef's  trial 
without  any  possibility  of  the  proceedings  being  questioned  later. 


Ruef  a  Fugitive  133 

When  Ruef's  case  was  called  for  trial  in  Judge 
Dunne's  department  on  the  morning  following  the  pro- 
ceedings in  Judge  Hebbard's  court,  Ruef's  attorney, 
Samuel  M.  Sliortridge,  was  present,  but  not  the  de- 
fendant. 

Shortridge  was  in  the  position  of  an  attorney  in 
court  without  a  client."^  After  a  wait  of  four  hours,  to 
give  Ruef  every  opportunity  to  make  his  appearance, 
Heney  moved  that  the  bonds  of  the  absent  defendant  be 
declared  forfeited,  specifying  the  bonds  originally  given 


147  Judge  Dunne  ruled  that  Ruef,  being  a  fugitive  from  justice, 
and  his  trial  one  for  felony,  at  which  the  defendant  must  he  present 
at  every  stage  of  the  proceedings,  there  was  no  trial  before  the 
court.  Shortridge  was  in  the  position  of  counsel  without  a  client. 
During  the  examination  of  Coroner  Walsh,  after  his  failure  to  find 
Ruef,  Shortridge  insisted  upon  interrupting  the  examination.  Judge 
Dunne  after  repeated  warnings,  found  Shortridge  guilty  of  con- 
tempt of  court,  and  sentenced  him  to  serve  twenty-four  hours  in 
jail.  The  Chronicle  of  March  9,  1907,  contains  the  following  ac- 
count of  the  incident: 

"Have  you  not  said,"  Walsh  was  asked  by  Heney,  "that  you 
hoped  he  CRuef)  would  be  acquitted  and  that  you  would  do  all  you 
could  for  him?     Are  you  not  in  sympathy  with  him?" 

Again  the  Coroner  quibbled  and  Judge  Dunne  ordered:  "Answer 
the  question.     Do  you  sympathize  with  him  or  not?" 

Still  the  witness  hesitated,  and  again  the  Judge  asked  with 
vigor:     "Are  you  in  sympathy  with  him?" 

"If  he  is  innocent  I  am  in  sympathy  with  him,  if  he  is  guilty 
I  am  not." 

"I  suppose  you  wish  it  to  appear  that  you  are  not  in  s^mipathy 
with  him  so  that  you  may  take  charge  of  the  jury,"  suggested 
Heney. 

Samuel  M.  Shortridge,  one  of  Ruef's  lawyers,  here  said  that  he 
objected  on  behalf  of  liis  client  to  the  line  of  examination. 

Heney  proceeded  without  paying  any  attention  to  Shortridge's 
interruption.  Shortridge  again  entered  an  objection,  and  .Judge 
Dunne  ordered  him  to  take  his  seat. 

"But  I  wish  to  be  heard  on  behalf  of  my  client,"  persisted  Short- 
ridge. 

"Take  your  seat,  Mr.  Shortridge,  or  I  will  order  the  Sheriff  to 
cause  you  to  do  so  or  remove  you  from  the  court  room,"  declared 
Judge  Dunne. 

"Am  I  to  understand  that  I  am  not  to  be  heard  In  this  court?" 
demanded  Shortridge  with  piny  of  great  indignation. 

"Mr.  Shortridge.  your  conduct  is  boisterous  and  offensive  and 
tends  to  interfere  with  the  orderly  conduct  of  the  court.  I  declare 
you  guilty  of  contempt  and  sentence  you  to  be  confined  in  the 
County  Jail  for  twenty-four  hours.  Mr.  Sheriff,  take  him  into 
custody." 


134  Ruef  a  Fugitive 

as  well  as  those  furnished  in  the  proceedings  before 
Hebbard. 

Judge  Dunne,  in  ruling  upon  Heney's  motion,  stated 
that  he  was  proceeding  as  though  the  proceedings  be- 
fore Judge  Hebbard  had  not  occurred.  Those  proceed- 
ings, he  announced,  he  felt  were  under  a  species  of 
fraud.  He  ordered  Ruef's  original  bonds  forfeited  and 
took  the  question  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  bonds  in  the 
proceedings  before  Judge  Hebbard  under  advisement. 
He  considered  it  his  duty,  he  said,  to  proceed  with  the 
trial  of  the  case  until  ordered  to  desist  by  the  Supreme 
Court  or  by  the  Court  of  Appeals. 

Attorney  Shortridge  announced  to  Judge  Dunne  that 
in  proceeding  with  the  hearing  he  might  find  himself  in 
contempt  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 
Judge  Dunne  stated  that  that  would  not  embarrass 
him,  and  in  any  event,  he  would  not  proceed  v/ith  the 
matter  until  the  defendant  was  in  court. 

The  day  passed  without  the  defendant's  whereabouts 
being  discovered.  Sheriff  O'Neil  reported  that  he  had 
been  unable  to  find  the  fugitive,  but  expressed  his  belief 
that  he  would  be  able  to  do  so  eventually.  With  that 
understanding  court  adjourned  for  the  day. 

The  day  following,  Ruef's  attorneys  appealed  to  the 
State  Appellate  Court  ^^^  for  a  writ  of  prohibition  to  pre- 
vent Judge  Dunne  and  others  from  further  proceeding 
against  Ruef  in  the  extortion  cases,  and  to  show  cause 

148  The  two  principal  points  on  which  the  defense  based  their 
applications  for  writs  of  habeas  corpus  and  of  prohibition  were: 

(1)  That  Juror  Wise,  having  sat  on  a  petty  jury  within  a  year, 
was  disqualified  to  act  as  a  Grand  Juror,  and  hence  the  indictments 
were  fatally  defective. 

(2)  That  the  matter  was  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  on  a  writ  of  error. 


Ruef  a  Fugitive  135 

why  the  writ  should  not  be  made  permanent.  Ruef  being- 
in  hiding,  the  application  was  not  signed  by  the  peti- 
tioner. The  Appellate  Court,  after  twenty-four  hours, 
denied  the  petition.  Ruef's  representatives  then  went 
before  the  State  Supreme  Court  Vv-ith  the  same  repre- 
sentations.    And  here,  again,  eventually,  Ruef  lost. 

In  the  meantime,  Ruef  had  not  been  found.  The  day 
following  his  disappearance.  Judge  Dunne  disqualified 
the  Sheriff  and  named  the  next  officer  in  authoritative 
sequence  in  such  matters,  the  Coroner,  W.  J.  Walsh,  as 
elisor,  to  arrest  Ruef  and  bring  him  into  court. 

Coroner  Walsh  had  no  better  success  than  had  Sheriff 
O'Neil.  Ruef  had  disappeared  on  the  night  of  Monday, 
March  4.  On  Friday,  March  8,  after  three  days  of 
unavailing  search  by  O'Neil  and  Walsh, ^^^  Judge  Dunne 
disqualified  Walsh  and  appointed  William  J.  Biggy  ^'° 
as  elisor  to  arrest  the  fugitive. 

Within  two  hours  Biggy,  accompanied  by  Detective 
William  J.  Burns,  had  located  Ruef  at  a  road-house  in 
the  San  Francisco  suburbs  and  had  placed  him  under 
arrest. ^^^ 


149  Heney,  In  his  affidavit  in  contention  that  an  Elisor  siiould 
be  appointed  to  bring  Ruef  into  court,  indicated  the  conditions 
which  were  handicapping  the  prosecution. 

150  Biggy  afterwards  became  Chief  of  Police  of  San  Francisco. 

131  Ruef  was  with  one  of  his  henchmen,  Myrtlle  Cerf,  when  nr- 
rested.  Long  after,  when  he  had  plead  guilty  to  one  of  the  extor- 
tion charges,  Ruef  stated  in  an  Interview  published  In  the  San 
Francisco  Call.  May  IG,  1907,  that  it  had  been  his  purpose  "to  wait 
until  the  Legislature  had  acted  on  the  Change  of  Venue  Bill,"  which 
was  considered  In  a  previous  chapter,  and  which  at  the  time  of 
Ruef's  flight  was  being  engineered  through  the  Senate  by  George 
Keane  in  his  capacity  as  Senator.  Ruef,  in  his  interview,  stated 
further:  "We  had  expected  that  this  bill  would  go  through.  Nat- 
urally we  were  surprised  when  we  learned  that  Campbell,  the  May- 
or's (Schmitz's)  .attoiney,  was  at  Sacramento  lobbying  against  t.ho 
bill.     What  his  object  was  I  do  not  know.     He  even  went  to  George 


136  Ruef  a  Fugitive 

Having  taken  his  man,^"'^  the  elisor  was  at  a  loss  to 
know  what  to  do  with  him.  To  put  him  in  the  city 
prison  was  to  turn  him  over  to  the  police;  to  put  him 
in  the  county  jail  was  to  turn  him  over  to  the  Sheriff. 
The  Chief  of  Police  was  even  then  under  indictment  with 
Ruef,  a  co-defendant ;  the  Sheriff  had  been  disqualified. 
The  only  alternative  was  for  Biggy  himself  to  hold  Ruef 
until  the  court  could  act.  Biggy  accordingly  secured 
suitable  quarters  at  the  Hotel  St.  Francis,  and  there  held 
Ruef  a  prisoner  until  the  following  Monday,  when  he 
was  taken  before  Judge  Dunne. 

Judge  Dunne  refused  to  admit  Ruef  to  bail,  re- 
manded him  to  Elisor  Biggy's  custody,  and  continued  his 
trial  until  the  following  morning,  Tuesday,  March  12. 

Ruef  immediately  made  application  to  the  Supreme 
Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  asking  to  be  released 
from  the  custody  of  Elisor  Biggy  and  placed  in  charge 
of  the  Sheriff.  But  here  again  Ruef  was  defeated. 
Elisor  Biggy  continued  his  keeper  for  many  months  fol- 
lowing. 

Ruef,  after  his  appeal  to  the  Federal  Supreme  Court, 
had  exhausted  every  legal  device  known  to  himself  and 
his  attorneys  to  escape  trial  in  the  extortion  case  pending 


Keane,  who  had  charge  of  the  hill,   and  tried  to  switch  him  to  the 
other  side." 

During-  the  period  of  Ruef's  disappearance,  his  attorneys  had  in- 
sisted that  they  were  unaware  of  his  whereabouts.  Myrtile  Cerf, 
his  companion  in  flight,  refused  to  say  before  the  Grand  Jury  with 
whom  he  had  telephonic  communication  while  at  the  roadhouse,  on 
the  ground  that  such  testimony  might  incriminate  him. 

152  Ruef's  arrest  threw  the  administration  into  the  greatest:  con- 
fusion. Supervisor  Wilson  testified  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs. 
Ruef.  No.  1437,  Part  3,  Vol.  7,  p.  3175,  that  at  2  o'clock  of  the  morn- 
ing following  Ruef's  capture,  he  went  down  to  Henry  Ach's  apart- 
ment to  ascertain  if  the  rumor  that  Ruef  had  been  found  were 
true. 


Ruef  a  Fugitive  137 

before  Judg-e  Dunne. ^^^  His  last  recourse  gone,  Ruef 
found  himself  brought  face  to  face  with  trial  before  a 
jury.  On  March  13  the  selecting  of  jurors  to  try  Ruef 
began  in  Judge  Dunne's  court. 

But  events  of  far  greater  moment  than  petty  extortion 
had  the  attention  of  San  Francisco.  Even  as  Ruef  was 
in  hiding,  Detective  Burns  and  his  assistants  had  trapped 
three  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  in  bribery. 
This    opened    up    the    most    fruitful    field    of   the   graft 


153  Of  the  procedure  which  made  possible  Ruef  s  long:  technical 
flglit  to  escape  trial,  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  on  November  10, 
1906,   said: 

"The  disgraceful  condition  of  our  criminal  laws  permits  guilty 
men  to  put  off  their  doom  almost  without  limit.  Where  money 
makes  unscrupulous  talent  available  that  course  is  invariably  taken 
by  those  caufrht  in  the  toils  of  justice.  There  are  many  objects 
to  be  gained  by  these  delays.  V/itnesses  may  die  or  be  spirited 
away.  Most  important  of  all  the  public  becomes  wearied  and 
finally  forgets  or  loses  its  zest  for  the  enforcement  of  the  law. 
When  that  stage  is  reached  the  'pull'  comes  into  play.  By  the 
connivance  of  the  District  Attorney,  and  especially  of  the  Judge, 
continuance  after  continuance  can  be  granted  until  proof  becomes 
impossible  and  the  case  is  dismissed.  The  adoption  of  such  a  course 
by  any  accused  person  of  bad  reputation  is  moral  evidence  of  guilt 
which  is  conclusive  with  the  public.  We  have  had  in  this  city 
many  disgraceful  criminal  trials.  We  have  had  many  obvious  mis- 
carriages of  justice.  There  have  been  wealthy  men  whom  every- 
body feels  should  be  in  the  penitentiary  who  have  hardly  ceased 
for  a  day  to  flaunt  their  faces  in  decent  society.  We  have  never 
had  a  case  in  which  the  obstruction  to  the  cause  of  justice  began 
so  early  as  Ruef  began  it,  or  was  conducted  with  such  brazen  ef- 
frontery. It  is  not  v/ithin  our  recollection  that  any  accused  person 
of  whose  guilt  there  was  reasonable  doubt  had  adopted  such  a 
course.     Its  adoption  is  the  recognized  sisrn  of  guilt. 

"But  while  our  lawr  affecting  court  practice  are  very  bad,  they 
do  afford  the  means  of  ultimately  bringing  criminals  to  trial  and 
convicting  them  if  the  evidence  is  sufficient  and  the  jury  unbiased 
and  uncorrupted.  It  only  requires  that  the  public  maintains  its  in- 
terest and  thereby  sustains  its  officials  in  their  efforts  to  secure 
justice.  In  this  case  the  advantage  is  with  the  public.  There  is 
no  possibility  of  a  'pull'  with  the  District  Attorney.  His  assistant, 
Mr.  Heney,  is  himself  a  master  of  the  criminal  law  and  in  notable 
cases  elsewhere  has  triumphed  over  similar  efforts  for  delay  made 
in  behalf  of  criminals  of  far  higher  social  and  political  standing 
than  Ruef.  In  fact  Ruef  has  no  standing  of  any  kind  in  the  com- 
munity in  any  way  different  from  that  possessed  by  other  political 
bosses  supposed  to  be  corrupt.  The  indignation  of  this  community 
is  a  righteous  indignation  and  it  will  never  abate  until  under  the 
due  processes  of  law  the  truth  in  respect  to  Ruef  and  his  rousta- 
bouts is  dragged  out  in  open  court." 


138  Ruef  a  Fugitive 

prosecution,  and  immediately  the  extortion  cases  became 
of  comparative  unimportance.  The  trapping  of  the 
three  Supervisors  led  to  confessions  from  fourteen  oth- 
ers, which  involved  not  only  Ruef  in  enormous  bribery 
transactions,  but  also  prominent  members  of  the  bar, 
and  leaders  in  the  social,  financial  and  industrial  life  of 
California. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Trapping  of  the  Supervisors. 

Months  before  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury  was  convened, 
it  was  common  gossip  in  San  Francisco  that  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  were  taking-  money  from 
the  pubHc  service  corporations.^^*  Belief  of  this  had  got 
beyond  the  stage  of  mere  newspaper  accusation.  It  had 
become  the  firmly-settled  conviction  of  the  law-abiding 
element    of    the    community.      For    this    reason,    as    the 


ir.4  At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437,  Superv^isor 
Andrew  M.  W^ilson  testified  to  a  conversation  which  he  had  had 
with  Ruef  at  Ruef's  ofnce  early  in  September,  1906.  He  was  asked 
to  state  what  he  had  said  to  Ruef  on  that  occasion.  Wilson  re- 
plied: 

"A.  I  told  him  Mr.  Choynski  was  across  the  street;  I  pulled  the 
blind  aside  at  his  office,  and  showed  him  Mr.  Choynski  talking  to 
.Tesse  Marks;  that  he  had  stated  to  Marks  the  exact  amount  on  the 
trolley  proposition. 

"Mr.  Sullivan:  Q.  Wlio  had  stated  to  Marks  the  exact  amount 
on  the  trolley  proposition?  A.  Mr.  ChojTiski,  and  that  I  had  ad- 
vised him  a  few  weeks  before  that  not  to  continue  that  flght  for 
the  attorneyshin  of  the  Liquor  Dealers. 

"Q.  Advised  who?  A.  Mr.  Ruef;  and  that  Mr.  Choynski  was 
telling-  him  what  he  had  said  to  McGushin  at  one  of  the  meetings 
regarding  the  $4,000  on  the  trolley. 

"Q.  That  who  had  said  what  he  had  told  Mr.  McGushin?  A. 
Yes.   sir. 

"Q.  That  who  had  said  it?  A.  That  Mr.  Choynski  had  said 
that  McGushin  looked  paralyzed  when  he  mentioned  the  exact 
amount,  but  denied  it;  and  I  savs  to  Mr.  Ruef,  'He  has  the  cor- 
rect amount  on  the  trolley,'  and  he  stated  that  there  must  be  a 
leak  somewhere  in  the  Boai-d;  and  I  told  him  I  thought 

"Q.  (Interrupting).  Who  stated  that  there  must  be  a  leak 
somewhere  in  the  Board?  A.  Mr.  Ruef:  and  I  stated  that  I  thought 
it  came  through  Morris  Levy,  and  that  possibly  he  got  his  infor- 
mation through   Supervisor  Kelly,  as  they  were  very  friendly. 

"Mr.  Arh:     O.     Who  said  that,  you  or  Ruef? 

"Mr.  Sullivnn:  Q.  W^ho  snid  that?  A.  I  stated  that  to  Mr. 
Ruef,  thnt  I  thought  the  source  of  the  leak  was  through  Super- 
visor Kelly  telling  Morris  Levy,  and  Morris  Levy  telling  Choynski." 
— See  Transcript,  page  2643. 


140  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

months  wore  away  in  technical  wrangHng  in  the 
"French  Restaurant"  extortion  cases,  the  pubhc  became 
impatient  that  time  and  energy  should  be  expended  in 
comparatively  unimportant  matters,  while  big  graft  went 
unprobed. 

Partisans  of  the  administration  took  advantage  of  this 
sentiment  to  belittle  the  prosecution. 

Under  this  sort  of  hammering,  the  prosecution,  dur- 
ing the  months  of  February  and  March,  1907,  unques- 
tionably lost  ground  in  public  opinion. 

But  with  Ruef  holding  the  Supervisors  to  rigid  ac- 
counting, and  agents  of  public-service  corporations  lynx- 
eyed  ^^^  to  detect  any  weakness  in  their  position,  and 
quick  to  report  with  warning  and  advice  to  Ruef  at  any 
suggestion  of  danger.  Burns  and  his  associates  were  able 
to  make  little  headway  in  securing  evidence  of  big  graft 
that  would  justify  indictment  or  warrant  trial. 

The  Supervisors  looked  to  Ruef  absolutely.  Some  of 
them  took  bribe  money  from  others  than  himself  in  spite 
of  his  warning,  but  when  they  scented  a  trap  they  hur- 
ried to  Ruef  for  advice. 

When  he  directed  them  to  return  the  bribe  money 


155  Supervisor  James  L..  Gallagher  testifled  at  the  trial  of  The 
People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437,  of  a  note  which  had  been  delivered  to 
him  by  Mr.  Abbott,  attorney  for  the  United  Railroads,  from  Tirey 
L.  Ford,  head  of  the  United  Railroads  law  department,  to  be  de- 
livered to  Ruef.  The  substance  of  the  note,  Gallag'her  testified, 
was  that  "The  Grand  Jury  is  taking  up  the  investig'ation  of  the 
charges  concerning  the  United  Railroads  permit;  not  much  headway 
has  been  made;  it  is  intended  to  endeavor  to  trap  some  of  the  Su- 
pervisors." 

Gallagher,  unable  to  find  Ruef,  went  back  to  Ford,  according 
to  Gallagher's  testimony,  and  asked  if  the  note  were  so  important 
that  Ruef  should  be  hunted  up.  Ford  had  directed  him  to  open  the 
envelope  and  read  the  note.  Gallagher  did  this,  made  a  short- 
hand memora.ndum  of  it.  and  read  the  message  to  Ruef  later.  See 
transcript.   The  People  vs.  Ruef,  Part  3,  Vol.  2,  pp.  976  to  983. 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  141 

they  promised  to  do  so,  and  in  some  cases  actually  re- 
turned it. 

Ruef  was  a  competent  captain  over  men  who  had  all 
confidence  in  his  ability  to  keep  them  out  of  trouble.  So 
long  as  he  was  in  touch  with  the  Supervisors  his  posi- 
tion so  far  as  the  Supervisors  was  concerned  was  al- 
most impregnable.  When,  however,  Ruef  was  caught 
in  a  position  where  he  could  no  longer-  consult  freely 
with  his  men,  advise  them  and  reassure  them,  his  or- 
ganization went  to  pieces  in  a  wild  scramble  of  every 
member  thereof  to  save  himself. 

This  occurred  when  Ruef  was  placed  in  the  custody 
of  Elisor  Biggy. 

Ruef  fully  appreciated  this  weak  point  in  his  posi- 
tion. He  realized  from  the  beginning  of  the  Graft 
Prosecution  the  danger  of  members  of  the  Board  of 
Supervisors  being  trapped  in  independent  bribery,  and 
himself  becoming  involved  through  their  confessions. 
Even  before  his  flight  from  trial  in  the  extortion  case, 
he  knew  that  his  fears  bade  fair  to  be  realized. 

Some  fortnight  before  Ruef's  flight,  Supervisor  Lon- 
ergan  had  been  to  Ruef  with  confession  of  having  taken 
$500  from  Golden  M.  Roy.  Roy  was  proprietor  of  a  well- 
known  cafe  and  v/as  counted  by  men  in  Lonergan's 
position  as  one  of  the  supporters  of  the  administration. 
But  the  more  astute  Ruef  at  once  suspected  betrayal. 
Ruef  bluntly  informed  Lonergan  that  he  had  been 
trapped,  directed  him  to  return  the  money  Roy  had  given 
him  and  warned  him  of  the  risk  he  ran  in  accepting 
bribes. 

Ruef's  fears  were  well  founded.    Roy,  in  his  dealings 


142  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

with  Lonergan,  was  acting  for  Detective  William  J. 
Burns. 

The  trap  which  Burns  had  prepared  for  the  eager 
Lonerg-an  was  plausibly  baited. 

Roy  was  a  restaurant  keeper  with  several  side  enter- 
prises, among  them  interests  in  a  skating-rink.  An  ordi- 
nance regulating  skating-rinks  was  pending  before  the 
Supervisors.  Roy,  acting  under  direction  of  the  District 
Attorney,  approached  Lonergan  with  a  statement  that  he 
wished  the  ordinance  defeated.  Lonergan  accordingly 
met  Roy  at  the'  skating-rink  office.  In  an  adjoining 
room,  placed  so  they  could  see  and  hear,  were  Detective 
William  J.  Burns  and  two  others.  From  their  places  of 
concealment  the  three  men  heard  the  bargain,  and  saw 
Roy  pay  Lonergan  $500  to  defeat  the  skating-rink  ordi- 
nance. 

Roy,  acting  for  the  District  Attorney,  then  attempted 
to  trap  Gallagher.  He  offered  Gallagher  $1000  for  his 
work  on  the  skating-rink  ordinance.  Gallagher  refused 
to  take  any  money  and  said  that  Roy  was  a  friend  of 
the  administration  and  it  should  not  cost  him  anything. 
Roy  urged  Gallagher  to  accept  the  money,  alleging  that 
it  came  from  a  pool ;  that  Gallagher  was  entitled  to  it ; 
that  he,  Roy,  had  given  money  to  several  Supervisors 
already.  Gallagher  asked  him  to  tell  which  ones.  Roy 
refused,  saying,  "You  would  not  expect  me  to  tell  on 
you." 

Gallagher  immediately  suspected  Lonergan  and  told 
his  suspicions  to  Wilson,  and  the  tv/o  hunted  up  Loner- 
gan and  charged  him  with  getting  the  money. 

Gallagher  hurried  Lonergan  to  Ruef  much  the  same 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  143 

as  they  would  have  rushed  a  man  showing  the  symp- 
toms of  a  deadly  malady  to  a  physician.  Ruef  warned 
him  and  advised  him.  The  thoroughly  frightened  Su- 
pervisor assured  Ruef  that  he  would  be  careful  in  the 
future,  and  that  he  would  return  the  money  he  had 
received  from  Roy."" 

But  even  as  Ruef  was  dealing  with  Lonergan,  Super- 
visor Edward  I.  Walsh  was  walking  into  a  trap  set  in 
duplication  of  that  into  which  Lonergan  had  fallen. 

Walsh,  at  the  skating-rink,  with  the  eyes  of  Burns 
and  others  upon  him,  accepted  $500  from  Roy — who 
was  working  as  before  under  direction  of  the  District 
Attorney — as  the  price  of  his  vote  on  the  skating-rink 
ordinance. 

The  third  Supervisor  to  fall  into  the  District  Attor- 
ney's trap  was  Dr.  Charles  Boxton. 

Dr.  Boxton  "''  was  a  different  type  from  Lonergan 
and  Walsh.  He  had  had  the  advantage  of  superior 
education  and  training.  A  specially  prepared  trap  was 
set  for  him  at  Roy's  house.  Boxton  was  introduced  into 
the  front  room  separated  from  the  dining-room  by  fold- 
ing doors.  The  dining-room  had  been  darkened,  and 
the  folding  doors  left  slightly  ajar.  Burns,  with  his 
assistants,  was  concealed  in  the  dining-room,  where  they 

1S8  An  interestint?  incident  of  thi.s  transaction  grew  out  of  word 
heins?  carried  to  Roy,  that  Ruef  had  told  Loneraan  that  Roy  was  a 
stool  pig:con  for  Burns.  Roy  went  to  Ruef's  office  with  a  show  of 
prreat  indifrnation,  demandins:  to  know  what  Ruef  meant  by  such 
a  charge.     Ruef  apologized  and  denied. 

157  Boxton  is  thus  described  by  Ruef,  In  his  account  of  the  graft 
cases:  "Dr.  Boxton  was  a  dentist;  he  held  the  position  of  dean  and 
professor  of  dentistry  in  an  established  medical  and  dental  college. 
He  was  a  popular  man  about  town;  had  been  one  of  the  grand  of- 
ficers of  the  Native  Sons'  organization;  an  officer  of  the  First  Cali- 
fornia Regiment  in  the  Philippines,  and  had  been  several  times 
elected  Supervisor  by  large  and  popular  votes." 


144  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

could  see  all  that  took  place  in  the  front  room,  as  well 
as  hear  what  was  said.  They  saw  Roy  offer  Boxton 
the  money;  heard  him  tell  Boxton  that  the  ordinance 
was  to  be  defeated ;  saw  Boxton  take  the  money. 

The  trap  was  to  be  sprung  once  more,  with  Loner- 
gan,  for  the  second  time,^^^  the  victim. 

Lonergan,  instead  of  returning  the  $500  he  had  ac- 
cepted in  the  skating-rink  transaction,  as  he  had  prom- 
ised Ruef  he  would  do,  accepted  an  additional  $500  from 
Roy.  As  before,  Burns  and  his  men  witnessed  the 
transaction. 

Roy  had  told  Lonergan  of  an  ordinance  authorizing 
the  establishing  of  an  oil  refinery  in  which  Roy  claimed 
to  be  interested.  He  promised  Lonergan  $500  to  sup- 
port the  measure.  The  ordinance  had  been  cleverly 
prepared,  with  an  acrostic  in  the  title,  spelling  the  word 
"Fake."  ^^^  Roy  had  interested  Boxton  in  the  measure 
as  well  as  Lonergan.  Boxton  had  introduced  it  at  a 
regular  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  On  March 
7,  while  Ruef  was  a  fugitive,  Lonergan  went  to  Roy's 
house  to  get  the  money  to  be  paid  him  for  the  support 
of  the  "Fake"  ordinance. 


158  The  reason  for  springing  the  trap  on  Lonergan  the  second 
time  was  that  the  plan  of  Burns's  had  miscarried  on  ttie  first  trap. 
Burns  had  put  a  man  in  partnership  with  Lonergan,  who  was  to 
induce  Lonergan  to  cash  a  draft  for  $200,  shortly  after  Lonergan 
had  received  the  $500  in  marlted  currency. 

When  Lonergan  was  asked  to  cash  the  dra.ft,  he  said  all  right, 
but  that  he  would  have  to  go  home  and  get  the  money.  He  went 
home  and  brought  back  gold.  About  this  time  the  Chronicle  pub- 
lished a  story  to  th2  effect  that  several  Supervisors  had  been 
trapped. 

159  The  acrostic  was  made  by  skipping  two  lines  to  the  third, 
the  first  word  of  which  began  with  "F,"  then  skipping  two  lines 
to  the  sixth,  skipping  two  lines  to  the  ninth,  and  finally  skipping 
two  lines  to  the  twelfth;  the  first  letter  of  the  first  word  of  each 
of  these  lines  spelt  the  word  "Fake." 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  145 

The  same  arrangements  had  been  made  for  Lonergan 
as  for  Boxton.  Burns  and  his  men  were  concealed  in 
the  darkened  dining-room ;  the  folding  doors  were  ajar.- 
Lonergan  took  the  money. 

"What,"  he  demanded  of  Roy,  "have  you  in  the  next 
room?"  and  advanced  toward  the  partially-open  folding 
doors.    At  that  Burns  threw  the  doors  open. 

"You  see,"  said  Burns,  "what  he  has  in  there." 

"I  want  you  to  arrest  this  man,"  cried  Lonergan,  in- 
dicating Roy.     "He  bribed  a  Supervisor." 

"Yes,  I  saw  him  do  it,"  replied  Burns.  "But  you 
did  not  tell  me  to  arrest  him  when  he  bribed  you  down 
at  the  skating-rink." 

Lonergan  at  first  denied  the  skating-rink  incident,  but 
finally  admitted  it.  Langdon  and  Heney  were  sent  for, 
and  joined  the  party  at  Roy's  house.  Lonergan  was 
urged  to  tell  what  he  knew  of  graft  of  the  Schmitz-Ruef 
administration.  He  finally  consented.  It  was  not  a 
long  story.  Supervisor  James  L.  Gallagher  had  acted 
as  go-between,  Lonergan  stated,  from  Ruef  to  the  Su- 
pervisors. From  Gallagher,  Lonergan  testified,  he  had 
received  $475  to  influence  his  vote  in  the  ordinance 
granting  permits  to  the  organized  prize  fight  promoters 
to  hold  fights  once  a  month ;  $750  to  influence  his  vote 
in  fixing  gas  rates  at  85  cents  per  thousand  instead  of 
75  cents,  as  had  been  pledged  in  the  Union  Labor  party 
platform  on  which  he  had  been  elected ;  $3500  in  the 
matter  of  granting  the  Home  Telephone  Company's 
franchise;  $4000  for  his  vote  in  granting  the  United 
Railroads  its  permit  to  establish  the  overhead  trolley 
system.      Lonergan    stated    further   that    Gallagher   had 


146  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

promised  him  $750,  and  later  $1000,  to  influence  his  vote 
in  the  matter  of  passing  an  ordinance  for  the  sale  of  a 
franchise  applied  for  by  the  Parkside  Realty  Company, 
with  the  "biggest  thing  yet"  to  come,  Avhen  the  deal 
was  consummated,  by  which  the  city  would  accept  the 
plans  of  the  Bay  Cities  Water  Company. 

In  addition  to  the  sums  received  from  Gallagher, 
Lonergan  confessed  to  receiving  $5000  from  T.  V.  Hal- 
sey,  representing  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Tele- 
graph Company.  Halsey  had  paid  Lonergan  the  money, 
the  Supervisor  said,  to  oppose  the  granting  of  a  fran- 
chise to  the  Home  Telephone  Company. 

Walsh  and  Boxton  were  sent  for.  On  their  arrival 
at  Roy's  house  they  were  closely  questioned,  and  urged 
to  confess,  but  neither  would  make  a  statement  that 
night.  Boxton  insisted  that  he  would  admit  nothing 
unless  the  other  Supervisors  made  statements.  But  on 
the  following  day,  March  8,  Walsh  made  a  statement 
under  oath  to  the  District  Attorney  and  Heney,  in  which 
he  confessed  to  receiving  bribes  from  Gallagher,  except 
in  the  Home  Telephone  bribery,  in  the  same  amount 
and  under  like  conditions  that  Lonergan  had  stated 
bribes  had  been  paid  him. 

Startling  as  these  confessions  were,  they  as  a  matter 
of  fact  involved  none  but  Lonergan,  Walsh,  Gallagher 
and  Halsey.  At  no  point  did  they  touch  Ruef,  or 
Schmitz,  or  those  who  had  furnished  the  bribe  money. 
Boxton  with  Walsh  and  Lonergan  had  been  trapped  in 
bribery.  Two  had  confessed  to  receiving  money  from 
Gallagher,  but  even  though  the  third,  Boxton,  added 
his  confession  to  theirs,  it  would  not  have  provided 
sufficient  to  convict.     The  confessions  of  the  three  were 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  147 

uncorroborated  as  to  each  bribe.  The  remaining  fifteen 
Supervisors  would  to  a  certainty  have  sworn  they  voted 
for  the  several  measures  without  inducement.  With  such 
testimony  from  the  fifteen,  no  motive  could  have  been 
shown  for  Gallagher  to  bribe  Lonergan,  Walsh  and  Box- 
ton  ;  the  measures  could,  with  the  votes  of  the  fifteen, 
have  been  passed  without  the  votes  of  the  three  Super- 
visors trapped.  To  make  out  even  a  fairly  good  case 
against  Ruef,  it  was  absolutely  essential  to  have  Gal- 
lagher's testimony,  and  in  addition  thereto,  the  testimony 
of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors.^^*^ 

The  prosecution  had  made  progress  in  trapping  the 
three  Supervisors,  and  in  getting  confession  out  of  two 
of  them.  But  at  best  it  was  only  an  opening  wedge. 
The  least  slip  would  have  lost  all  the  ground  gained. 
The  three  trapped  Supervisors  might  be  sent  to  State 
Prison.  Had  they  been,  Schmitz  with  the  fifteen  Super- 
visors remaining  would  have  filled  their  places  by  ap- 
pointment. The  situation  would  then  be  more  difficult 
for  the  prosecution  than  ever. 

While  the  agents  of  the  District  Attorney  were  deal- 
ing with  the  complicated  problems  which  the  first  break 
in  the  line  of  the  graft  defense  brought  upon  them,  Ruef 


100  With  the  testimony  of  all  the  Supervisors,  including  Gallagher, 
the  prosecution  subsequently  found  great  difficulty  in  convicting 
Ruef.  In  the  Parkside  case,  all  the  Supervisors  testified  in  regard 
to  two  promises  made  to  them,  and  all  the  officials  of  the  Parkside 
Company  testified  to  negotiations  with  Ruef  and  to  the  payment  of 
money  to  him.  In  addition  thereto,  William  J.  Dingee,  who  was  an 
entirely  disinterested  party,  testified  to  a  conversation  with  Ruef, 
■which  was  highly  incriminating  in  its  character,  and  which 
amounted  to  an  admission  on  the  part  of  Ruef  that  he  was  receiv- 
ing money  in  the  Parkside  matter. 

With  all  this  evidence  before  it,  the  jury  stood  six  for  acquittal 
and  six  for  conviction. 


148  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

continued  a  fugitive.  Gallagher,  Ruef's  immediate  repre- 
sentative, realized  the  seriousness  of  the  situation.  He 
had  no  real  loyalty  for  Ruef.  His  one  thought  was  for 
Gallagher.  He  could  for  the  moment  see  no  hope  for 
himself,  except  in  the  defeat  of  the  prosecution.  He 
accordingly  exerted  himself  to  block  Burns,  and  to  pre- 
vent the  conditions  of  graft  in  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
from  becoming  public.^*'^  Supervisor  Wilson  was  as- 
sisting him.  As  encouragement,  the  anxious  Ruef  had 
sent  Gallagher  word  by  his  sister  to  remain  firm.  But 
the  leader  was  gone ;  Ruef's  grip  was  loosened.  From 
Gallagher  down  to  the  wretched  Lonergan,  the  Super- 
visors were  thinking  of  saving  themselves  alone. 

Ruef's  word,  sent  by  his  sister  to  Gallagher,  was  for 
Gallagher  "to  sit  on  the  lid."  Gallagher  soon  after  ob- 
served to  Wilson  that  "the  lid  was  getting  a  little 
warm" ;  that  he  thought  he  would  get  in  touch  with  the 
prosecution  to  see  what  could  be  done  with  the  other 


101  W^ilson  testified  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437, 
of  the  anxiety  of  the  Supervisors  during- this  period.  Although  Wil- 
son had  resigned  from  the  board  to  accept  tlie  office  of  State  Rail- 
road Commissioner  to  whicli  he  had  been  elected,  he  went  to  a  con- 
ference of  the  Supervisors  to  decide  wliat  should  be  done.  The  fol- 
lowing is  from  Wilson's  testimony: 

"Q.     You  were  not  then  a  Supervisor,  were  you?    A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.     M''ho  told  you  to  go  there?    A.    I  was  helping  Mr.  Gallagher. 

"Q.  Helping  Gallagher  do  what?  Don't  you  know?  A.  Sit  on 
the  lid,   that  is  what  we  called  it. 

"Q.     Helping  Gallagher  sit  on  the  lid?     A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  What  does  'sitting  on  the  lid'  mean?  That  is  a  bit  of  the 
vernacular  that  I  am  not  acquainted  with. 

"Mr.  Dwyer:  Tliat  is  vernacular  authorized  by  the  President- 
elect of  the  United  States.  I  suppose  it  is  good  English? 

"Mr.  Ach:  Well,  he  is  a  big  man;  I  suppose  he  might  sit  on 
something  that  might  be  a  lid.     The  Court:     Finish  your  answer. 

"Mr.  Ach:  Q.  What  do  you  mean?  A.  Trying  to  keep  the 
facts  of  the  condition  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  from  becoming 
public. 

"Q.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?  A.  The  condition  of  the 
Board,  the  graft  matters." 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  149 

side.  Wilson  assured  Gallagher  that  he  considered  such 
a  move  would  be  a  wise  one. 

Gallagher's  first  definite  word  that  as  many  as  three 
Supervisors  had  been  trapped  reached  him  through  Dr. 
Boxton's  attorney,  H.  M.  Owens.  Owens  told  Gallagher 
that  Boxton  had  made  full  statement  of  the  situation  to 
him  and  that  he  was  convinced,  and  so  was  Boxton,  that 
if  Boxton  went  to  trial  he  would  be  convicted. 

The  effect  of  this  information  upon  Gallagher  cans 
be  appreciated  when  it  is  realized  that  Gallagher,  acting 
as  Ruef's  go-between,  had  himself  paid  Boxton  money. 
Owens  stated  further  that  the  question  of  giving  the 
Supervisors  immunity,  provided  they  made  complete  con- 
fession, had  been  broached,  and  the  suggestion  had  been 
made  that  Gallagher  meet  some  member  of  the  prosecu- 
tion to  discuss  this  point.  The  names  of  Langdon  and 
Burns  were  suggested,  but  Gallagher  did  not  care  to 
meet  them.  He  finally  agreed,  however,  to  an  appoint- 
ment with  Rudolph  Spreckels. 

Before  the  meeting  between  Gallagher  and  Spreckeh 
took  place,  Langdon,  Heney,  Spreckels  and  Burns  had  a 
conference.  It  was  suggested  that  Spreckels  might  in- 
dicate to  Gallagher  that  the  prosecution  would  like  to 
have  his  confession  and  statement,  and  that  the  District 
Attorney  would  unquestionably  be  able  to  extend  to  him 
immunity  ^^^  on  the  strength  of  his  giving  full  and  free, 


102  At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun.  No.  1436, 
Spreckels  testified  to  his  own  attitude  on  the  question  of  immunity. 
He  said:  "I  would  be  willing  to  grant  immunity  to  any  man  who 
would  bring  to  bar  a  man  of  great  wealth  who  would  debauch  a 
city  government,  and  who  would  use  his  wealth  to  corrupt  indi- 
viduals and  tempt  men  of  no  means  to  commit  a  crime  in  order 
that  he  might  make  more  money." — See  transcript  of  testimony, 
page   3326. 


150  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

truthful  testimony  concerning  crimes  in  which  he  was 
involved  while  acting  as  a  Supervisor  in  connection  with 
the  public  service  corporations  and  others. 

Three  meetings  were  held  between  Spreckels  and 
Gallagher  before  the  matter  was  concluded.  The  meet- 
ing-place was  in  the  grounds  of  the  Presidio,  the  military 
reservation  at  San  Francisco. 

The  first  of  the  three  meetings  was  preliminary  only. 
Spreckels  explained  to  Gallagher  the  aims  and  purposes 
of  the  prosecution.^*'^  Gallagher  would  make  no  admis- 
sions, and  indicated  that  under  no  circumstances  would 
he  consider  the  District  Attorney's  immunity  proposition 
unless  all  the  Supervisors  were  included  within  its  pro- 
visions. 

After  this  preliminary  meeting,  Spreckels  conferred 
with  Langdon  and  Heney.  It  was  agreed  that  Galla- 
gher's  testimony   was   essential.      He   was,   indeed,   the 

163  At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437,  Gallagher  testi- 
fied that  Spreckels  told  him  in  substance  as  follows: 

"Mr.  Spreckels  then  stated  that  he  was  not  actuated  by  vindic- 
tiveness  in  the  matter,  that  he  did  not  wish  to  make  any  more 
trouble  or  cause  any  more  distress  than  was  necessary  in  carrying 
out  what  he  had  undertaken,  and  that  his  purpose  was  to  endeavor 
to  stop  the  unlawful  transactions, — dealings  of  corporations  and 
large  interests  in  this  city  with  public  officials;  that  his  reason,  that 
his  view  of  the  matter  was  that  in  order  to  accomplish  that,  that 
it  would  be  necessary,  or  that  he  did  not  desire  unnecessarily  to 
injure  anyone,  and  that  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
and  those  who  were  engaged  with  them  in  the  matter,  outside  of 
tliose  who  represented  the  corporations  and  big  interests,  were  not 
as  important  from  his  standpoint  as  those  who  had,  as  those  in 
control  of  those  interests,  because  the  members  of  the — the  public 
officials  and  political  bosses  would  come  and  go,  but  that  the  cor- 
porations and  big  interests  remained;  that  they  were,  as  he  thought, 
the  source  of  the  trouble,  and  therefore,  he  did  not  consider  it  im- 
portant, or  so  important,  to  punish  the  officials  as  to  reach  those 
that  were  in  his  judgment  primarily  responsible  for  the  conditions, 
that  he  felt  that  the  District  Attorney  would  grant  immunity  to  the 
members  of  the  Board  of  Supeivisors  if  they  would  tell  the  whole 
truth  of  their  transactions  with  the  corporations  and  other  persons, 
large  interests,  that  had  had  any  dealings  with  them  of  an  unlaw- 
ful character.  I  think  I  then  said  to  him  I  would  consider  the  mat- 
ter and  would  talk  with  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
about  it." 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  151 

pivotal  witness.  The  confessions  of  Lonergan,  Boxton 
and  Walsh  showed  that  he  had  carried  the  bribe  money 
from  Riief  to  the  Supervisors.  Furthermore,  the  testi- 
mony of  a  majority  of  the  Supervisors  would  be  neces- 
sary. Under  the  circumstances  it  was  decided  that  im- 
munity could  very  properly  be  extended  to  all  the  Super- 
visors. 

This  decision  Spreckels  took  back  to  Gallagher.  Gal- 
lagher called  his  leaderless  associates  together. 

By  this  time  it  was  generally  known  among  the  Su- 
pervisors that  Lonergan,  Walsh  and  Boxton  had  been 
trapped,  that  at  least  two  of  them  had  made  statements 
to  the  prosecution.  Furthermore,  there  were  rumors 
that  other  members  had  been  to  the  prosecution  and 
made   confessions. 

Gallagher  explained  the  seriousness  of  the  situa- 
tion."** He  explained  to  them  the  immunity  proposition 
which  the  prosecution  had  made,  and  stated  that  the 
matter  rested  in  their  hands.     He  said  that  he  was  will- 


i(>4  Gallag-lier  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No.  1437,  made 
the  following-  statement  of  what  he  said  to  the  Supervisors: 

"My  best  recollection  of  the  statement  is  that  I  said  to  them 
that  some  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  had  been 
trapped  in  accepting  money  on  some  matters  before  the  Board,  and 
tliat  they  had  inade  statements  to  the  prosecution,  as  I  understood, 
or  were  about  to  do  so,  and  that  I  had  seen  Mr.  Spreckels  and 
tnllced  with  him  concerning  tlie  other  members  of  the  Board  of 
Supervisors,  and  that  Mr.  Spreckels  had  stated  to  me  that  the  pur- 
pose was  not  to  prosecute  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
provided  they  would  make  statements,  full  and  true  statements,  of 
their  relations  in  the  transactions  with  the  quasi-public  corporations 
and  large  interests  in  the  city  that  they  may  have  had  unlawful 
dealings  with:  that  Mr.  Spreckels  had  stated  that  the  public  officials 
were  coming  and  going,  and  that  the  political  bosses  were  coming 
and  going;  his  object  was  to  reach  the  source  of  the  condition  that 
he  was  trying  to  eradicate;  that  the  corporations  and  these  other 
interests  remained  all  the  time,  and  that  he  felt  that  they  were  the 
ones  tliat  should  he  the  object  of  his  efforts  at  eradicating  that 
condition  in  the  city.  Mr.  Spreckels  stated  that  he  was  not  actuated 
by  vindictiveness  in  the  matter:  in  oth'>r  words,  Mr.  Ach,  as  nearly 
as  I  could,   I  repeated  the  statements  of  Mr.  Spreckels  to  me." 

See  Transcript  on  Appeal,  page  1471. 


1^2  Trapping  of  the  Supervisors 

ing  to  sacrifice  himself,  if  necessary,  but  that  the  whole 
matter  was  with  them  to  decide. 

Wilson  and  Boxton  urged  that  the  terms  offered  by 
the  prosecution  be  accepted,^^^ 

The  Supervisors  present  were  at  first  divided.  Some 
of  them  announced  that  they  would  take  the  attitude  of 
denying  all  graft. 

"Very  well,"  replied  Gallagher,  "any  one  who  wants 
to  take  that  attitude  will  be  excused  from  further  dis- 
cussion." 

But  none  of  the  troubled  officials  left  the  room. 

Boxton  stated  that  he  would  involve  Gallagher  in  a 
statement,  and  that  Gallagher  would  have  to  testify  to 
all  the  money  transactions  he  had  had  with  the  board. 
The  Supervisors  knew,  even  then,  that  Gallagher  had 
already  been  involved  by  the  confessions  of  Walsh  and 
Lonergan.  Under  the  urging  of  Gallagher,  Wilson  and 
Boxton,  they  finally  decided  to  m.ake  confession. 

Ruef  was  not  present  at  that  last  secret  caucus  of  the 
Schmitz-Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors. 

Gallagher  took  back  word  to  Spreckels  that  he  had 
communicated  to  the  Supervisors  the.  message  which 
Spreckels  had  delivered  to  him  from  the  District  Attor- 
ney, to  the  effect  that  immunity  would  be  granted  to 
the  Supervisors,  provided  they  would  make  sworn  dec- 


165  "I  told  them,"  said  Wilson  in  his  testimony  in  the  case  of 
The  People  vs.  Ruof,  No.  1437,  "that  I  had  always  taken  orders 
from  Mr.  Ruef,  that  I  looked  upon  him  as  the  political  captain  of 
the  ship,  that  I  had  follov/ed  out  his  orders;  that  I  did  not  feel  that 
I  should  sacrifice  myself,  or  ask  Mr.  Gallagher  to  sacrifice  himself 
through  the  condition  that  had  been  brought  about;  that  I  thought 
it  would  be  unreasonable  for  any  Supervisor  to  ask  Mr.  Gallagher 
to  sacrifice  himself,  that  some  of  the  others  might  walk  the  streets 
and  feel  that  they  were  honest  men;  that  I  did  not  feel  he  should 
be  sacrificed  alone  in  the  matter." 


Trapping  of  the  Supervisors  153 

laratioii  of  the  crimes  in  which  they  were  involved,  giv- 
ing a  truthful  account  of  all  matters.  The  Supervisors, 
Gallagher  told  Spreckels,  had  decided  to  accept  the  prop- 
osition, and  would  meet  the  District  Attorney  for  the 
purpose  of  making  their  statements. 

Gallagher  rather  tardily  asked  immunity  for  Ruef, 
hut  Spreckels  stated  that  he  had  not  discussed  this  fea- 
ture with  the  District  Attorney,  and  that  Gallagher  would 
himself  have  to  take  the  matter  up  with  the  authorities 
directly. 

In  considering  this  immunity  arrangement  wuth  the 
bribed  Supervisors,  the  fact  should  not  be  overlooked 
that  during  the  five  months  which  had  passed  since  the 
opening  of  the  graft  prosecution,  Spreckels  and  Heney 
had  been  meeting  officials  of  the  public  service  corpora- 
tions involved  practically  every  day  at  luncheon.  But 
the  corporation  officials  would  give  no  assistance  in  ex- 
posing the  corruption  which  was  undermining  the  com- 
munity.^*"' 

iGO  The  public  service  corporation  officials  were  encouraged  by 
Spreckels  and  Heney  to  give  information  which  would  lead  to  the 
indictment  and  conviction  of  Ruef  and  Schmitz,  and  thus  clean  up 
the  city.  Instead  of  giving  such  information,  they  pretended  that 
the  rumors  In  regard  to  bribery  were  all  baseless. 

At  the  Pacific  Union  Club,  where  they  generally  lunched,  Spreck- 
els and  Heney  were  the  recipients  of  many  kind  words  of  encour- 
agement and  of  congratulation,  up  to  the  time  that  Ruef  plead 
guilty  in  the  French-restaurant  case.  Immediately  thereafter  the 
atmosphere  commenced  to  change.  The  indictment  of  some  of  the 
prominent  members  of  the  club  was  not  pleasing.  During  the  first 
trial  of  Glass,  he  and  his  attorneys  constantly  lunched  at  the  Pacific 
Union  Club,  and  many  men,  prominent  in  finance,  would  stop  and 
chat  ostentatiously  with  Glass  and  his  lawyers,  and  would  then 
ignore  Spreckels  and  Heney,  who  would  be  sitting  at  a  near-by 
table. 

An  attempt  to  keep  Rudolph  Spreckels  out  of  membership  in  the 
Bohemian  Club  was  almost  successful  about  this  time,  while  Drum 
was  elected  a  director  of  the  Pacific  Union  Club  while  still  under 
indictment,  and  Thomas  Williams,  of  the  New  California  Jockey 
Club,  one  of  the  bondsmen  for  Schmitz,  was  elected  President. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
Confessions  of  the  Supervisors, 

The  resignation  of  Supervisor  Duffey  to  take  charge 
of  the  municipal  department  of  public  works,  and  of  Su- 
pervisor Wilson  ^''^  to  take  the  office  of  State  Railroad 
Commissioner,  left  sixteen  members  of  the  elected 
Schmitz-Ruef  Board  of  Supervisors  at  the  time  of  the 
exposures  of  the  graft  prosecution.  The  sixteen,  after 
the  surrender  at  their  last  secret  caucus,  made  full  con- 
fession of  their  participation  in  the  gains  of  the  organ- 
ized betrayal  of  the  city. 

Supervisor  Wilson  added  his  confession  to  the  six- 
teen. Thus,  of  the  eighteen  Union  Labor  party  Super- 
visors elected  in  1905,  four  years  after  the  organization 
of  that  party,  seventeen  ^*^^  confessed  to  taking  money 
from  large  combinations  of  capital,  the  very  interests 
which  the  party  had  been  brought  into  being  to  oppose. 
The  public  service  corporations,  confronting  a  party  or- 
ganized  primarily   to   control    municipal    government   to 

167  To  the  places  thus  vacated,  Mayor  Schmitz  appointed  O.  A. 
Tveitmoe  and  J.  J.  O'Neil.  Tveitmoe  and  O'Neil  assumed  their 
duties  as  Supervisors  after  the  bribery  transactions  were  completed. 
They  did  not  become  involved  in  the  graft  exposures,  but  served 
to  the  end  of  the  terms  for  which  they  had  been  appointed. 

168  The  eighteenth  Supervisor,  who  made  no  confession,  was 
Duffey.  Duffey,  according  to  Gallagher's  confession,  participated 
with  the  others  in  the  graft  distributions.  In  the  hurry  of  the 
final  arrangements  for  the  confessions,  however,  Gallagher  gained 
the  impression  that  confession  was  not  to  be  required  of  Duffey. 
Rather  than  give  appearance  of  lack  of  good  faith,  the  prosecu- 
tion decided  to  abide  by  the  impression  which  Gallagher  claimed  he 
liad  formed. 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  155 

the  end  that  equitable  conditions  in  San  Francisco 
might  be  guaranteed  those  who  labor,  by  the  simple 
process  of  support  before  election  and  bribery  after 
election,  secured  as  strong  a  hold  upon  the  community 
as  their  most  complete  success  at  the  polls  could  have 
given. 

These  large  interests,  approaching  the  new  order 
with  bribe-money,  found  politicians  operating  in  the 
name  of  organized  labor,  ostensibly  to  promote  the  best 
interests  of  labor,  to  be  not  at  all  formidable.  And  when 
the  exposure  came,  and  the  bribe-giving  corporation 
magnates  were  placed  on  their  defense,  their  most  potent 
allies  in  the  campaign  which  they  carried  on  to  keep  out 
of  the  penitentiary,  were  found  in  the  entrenched  lead- 
ers of  the  Union-Labor  party. 

The  Supervisors'  confessions  corroborated  the  state- 
ments previously  made  by  Lonergan,  Walsh  and  Boxton. 

The  bribery  transactions  to  which  the  seventeen  Su- 
pervisors confessed,  came  naturally  under  two  heads : 

The  first  class  included  the  briberies  carried  on 
tlirough  Ruef,  who  dealt  directly  with  those  who  fur- 
nished the  bribe  money.  Ruef  employed  Gallagher  as 
agent  to  deal  with  the  Supervisors.  Thus  Gallagher  did 
not  come  in  contact  with  those  who  furnished  the  money, 
while  the  Supervisors  were  removed  still  further  from 
connection  with  them.  Ruef,  on  his  part,  in  passing  the 
money,  did  not  come  into  immediate  contact  with  the 
Supervisors  except  in  Gallagher's  case.  It  was  bribery 
reduced  to  a  fine  art.  In  this  group  of  transactions  were 
included  the  bribery  of  the  Supervisors  to  grant  to  the 
United  Railroads  its  trolley  permit ;  to  the  Home  Tele- 


156  Confessions  of  the  Supervisors 

phone  Company,  its  franchise ;  to  the  Pacific  Gas  and 
Electric  Company,  an  85-cent  gas  rate ;  to  the  prize  fight 
combine,  monopoly  of  the  pugilistic  contests  in  San  Fran- 
cisco. In  this  class,  too,  is  properly  included  the  Park- 
side  Transit  Company,  which  had,  at  the  time  the  ex- 
posure came,  paid  Ruef  $15,000  to  secure  a  street  rail- 
road franchise,  with  a  promise  of  $15,000  more  when 
the  franchise  had  been  actually  granted.  The  Su- 
pervisors received  nothing  in  this  transaction,  but  they 
had  been  told  by  Ruef's  agent,  Gallagher,  there  would 
be,  first  $750  each  for  them  in  the  Parkside  matter. 
Later  on  they  were  told  the  sum  would  be  $1000  each. 

The  second  class  of  bribes  included  those  which 
were  paid  directly  to  the  Supervisors.  They  included 
the  bribes  paid  by  T.  V.  Halsey,  agent  of  the  Pacific 
States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  to  a  majority 
of  the  Supervisors  to  prevent  their  av/arding  the  Home 
Telephone  Company  its  franchise.  Gallagher  did  not 
participate  in  these  bribery  transactions,  and  could  only 
indirectly  throv/  light  upon  them.  But  in  the  other  cases 
Gallagher  was  the  pivotal  witness.  He  received  the  bribe 
money  from  Ruef,  and,  after  taking  out  his  share,  he 
paid  the  balance  to  the  other  Supervisors. 

With  a  wealth  of  detail,  Gallagher  told  how  he  had 
received  the  money,  when  and  where,  and  went  into  the 
particulars  of  its  distribution  among  his  associates.  He 
had  received  from  Ruef  in  all,  $169,350."''     Of  this,  he 

169  This  was  the  amount  that  Ruef  turned  over  to  the  Super- 
visors. It  represented  a  comparatively  small  part  of  what  he  re- 
ceived from  the  Public  Service  corporations.  From  the  United  Rail- 
roads alone,  because  of  the  granting-  of  the  trolley  permit,  he  re- 
ceived $200,000.  In  addition  he  was  drawing  a  regular  fee  of  $1,000 
a  month  from  the  United  Railroads. 

The  Supervisors  were  not  always  satisfied  with  the  amount  Gal- 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  157 

had  retained  $27,275  for  himself;  the  balance,  $142,075, 
he  had  divided  among  his  associates  on  the  board. 

This  enormous  corruption  fund  which  Gallagher  di- 
vided with  the  Supervisors  had  come  from  four  sources. 
The  so-called  prize-fight  trust  had  furnished  $9,000  of  it ; 
the  Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company,  $13,350;  the 
Home  Telephone  Company,  $62,000,  and  the  United 
Railroads,  $85,000. 

The  first  money  that  passed  from  Ruef  to  Gallagher 
and  from  Gallagher  on  to  the  Supervisors,  the  confes- 
sions showed,  was  for  the  prize-fight  monopoly.  This 
particular  bribery  seems  to  have  been  intended  as  a 
trying-out  of  the  several  members  to  ascertain  which  of 
them  would  take  money  in  connection  with  the  discharge 
of  their  duties  as  Supervisors. 

Every  member  of  the  board  accepted  the  package  of 
bills  which  Gallagher  tendered  him.  Indeed,  several  of 
them  displayed  surprising  alertness  to  secure  all  that  was 
their  due.  Ruef,  it  became  known  among  them,  had 
given  Gallagher  $9000,  which  evenly  divided,  meant  $500 
for  each  of  the  eighteen  Supervisors.  But  Gallagher 
gave  them   only  $475   each.     An   explanation   was   de- 


laprher  e:ave  thpm.  There  were  times  v/hen  they  entertained  the 
idea  that  Ruef  had  sent  more  than  Gnllaarher  gave.  They  accord- 
insrly  delesrated  Rupervi?or  "Wilson  to  ascertain  from  Ruef  whether 
all  the  money  intended  for  thern  was  rf^ar-hing'  them.  Ruef  refused 
to  discuss  the  matter  T'-jtii  Wilson.  ■Wilson,  at  the  trial  of  The 
Peonle  vs.  Ruef,   No.  1437,   testified: 

"I  told  him  CRuef)  that  the  Supervisors  had  asked  me  to  call 
and  see  him:  that  thev  wanted  other  information  to  confirm  Mr. 
Gallaarher's  reports  to  the  Board  on  these  money  matters.  He  said 
that  he  did  not  care  to  disr-uss  that  with  anyone  other  than  Mr. 
Gallasrher;  that  it  took  up  time  and  that  whatever  Mr.  Gallagher 
did  on  the  Board  was  with  h's  full  knowU'dee  and  consent;  that  the 
matters  were  beinsr  handled  satisfactorily  hy  Mr.  Gallagher,  and 
when  anythinsr  arose,  any  other  condition  confronted  him,  he 
would  look  elsewhere  for  a  leader,  but  he  did  not  want  to  go  In 
at  that  time  and  discuss  those  matters  with  anyone." 


158  Confessions  of  the  Supervisors 

manded  of  him.  He  stated  that  he  had  taken  out  5  per 
cent,  as  his  commission. 

So  strong  was  the  dissatisfaction  created  by  the  hold- 
ing out  of  this  5  per  cent,  that  Ruef  arranged  to  pay- 
Gallagher  a  larger  amount  than  the  others  received  to 
compensate  him,  no  doubt,  for  his  extra  services  as 
bribe-carrier. 

The  new  arrangement  for  the  compensation  of  Gal- 
lagher was  followed  when  the  Supervisors  were  paid 
after  fixing  gas  rates  at  85  cents  per  thousand  cubic 
feet,  instead  of  75  cents,^'^"  the  sum  pledged  in  their 
party  platform. 

One  of  the  Supervisors,  McGushin,  refused  to  break 
his  platform  pledge,  and  held  out  for  the  75-cent  rate. 
In  distributing  the  gas  money,  Gallagher  paid  nothing 
to  McGushin.i^^ 

But  to  each  of  the  remaining  sixteen  Supervisors, 
Gallagher  confessed  to  giving  $750.  Following  the  new 
rule  that  he  was  to  have  extra  compensation,  Gallagher 
kept  for  himself  $1350. 

At  the  time  of  the  gas-rate  bribery.  Supervisor  Rea 
was  making  it  unpleasant  for  his  associates.     Mr.  Rea 


170  About  the  time  the  85-cent  gas  rate  was  fixed,  one  of  the 
Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company's  stations  was  burned.  Ruef 
stated  to  Gallag-her  that  the  fire  would  be  used  as  one  of  the  rea- 
sons for  fixing  the  S5-cent  rate;  that  it  would  probably  appeal  to 
the  public  as  an  excuse  for  fixing  the  rate  at  S.5  cents  when  the 
Dlatform  of  the  party  h-^d  mentioned  75  cents.  See  Transcript,  The 
People  vs.   Ruef,   No.   1437,   page  784. 

171  V^hen  McGushin  refused  to  follow  directions  and  give  the 
Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company  an  8.5-cent  gas  rate,  Gallagher 
went  to  Ruef  about  it.  At  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Ruef,  No. 
1487,  Gallagher  testified:  "I  told  him  CRuef)  that  McGushin  was 
rather  demurring  at  receiving  the  money,  at  taking  the  money,  and 
that  I  had  told  Mr.  McGushin  that  he  had  better  go  down  and  talk 
with  Mr.  Ruef.  He  (Ruef)  said,  "All  right,  if  he  comes  around  I 
will   talk  v/ith   him." 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  159 

had  accepted  $475  prize-fight  money  from  Gallagher, 
without,  he  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury,  knowing 
what  it  was  for.  A  few  days  later  he  told  Schmitz  of 
the  matter.  Schmitz  contended  that  no  such  work  was 
going  on.  Rea,  when  he  received  his  $750  in  the  gas- 
rate  case,  went  to  Schmitz  with  a  statement  that  money 
was  used  to  have  the  gas  rate  fixed  at  85  cents.  Rea 
asked  Schmitz  what  he  was  to  do  with  the  money.  He 
testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  Schmitz  replied : 
"You  keep  quiet.     I  will  let  you  know." 

That  was  the  last  Rea  heard  from  Schmitz  on  the 
subject.  Rea  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  he 
still  had  the  money  Gallagher  had  paid  him  in  the  prize- 
fight and  gas-rate  cases. 

Rea's  trip  to  Schmitz  seems  to  have  kept  him  out  of 
the  division  of  the  Telephone  and  the  United  Railroads 
money. 

The  Telephone  bribery  was  somewhat  complicated  by 
the  fact  that  rival  companies  were  in  the  field  bidding 
for  Supervisorial  favor.  It  developed  that  eleven  of  the 
Supervisors  ^^-  had  accepted  from  T.  V.  Halsey,  repre- 
senting the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Com- 
pany, bribes  to  block  the  granting  of  a  franchise  to  the 

1T2  The  SurPi'visors  who  accenterl  money  from  Halsey,  actlngr 
for  the  PTfiflc  States  Telephone  and  Telecrraph  Company,  to  prevent 
a  franchise  beins  awarded  an  opposition  company  were:  Boxton, 
Walsh,  "^nison,  Colemin.  Nicholns.  Furey,  Mamlock,  Phillips,  T^on- 
ergran.  Sanderson  and  Coffey.  The  amount  paid  in  e.ach  instance 
was  Sn.OOn.  Hfilsey  promised  several  of  the  bribed  members  from 
$2,500  to  $5,000  in  addition  to  be  paid  them,  if  they  remained  faith- 
ful, after  thpir  terms  had  expired.  The  monev,  the  several  members 
testified,  had  been  paid  to  them  bv  Halsey  in  an  unfurnished  room 
in  the  Mills  Bnildinc:  whir^Ii  had  been  temporarily  ensra^ed  for  Mr. 
Halsev's  use  bv  Frank  C  Drum,  a  director  of  the  Pacific  States 
Telephone  and  Telearranh  Company.  Examples  of  the  methods  em- 
ployed to  corrupt  the  laborinermen  Supervisors  who  suddenly  found 
themselves  placed  in  a  position  of  trust  and  responsibility  will  he 
found  in  the  appendix, 


i6o  Confessions  of  the  Supervisors 

Home  Telephone  Company.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Home  Telephone  Company  had  paid  Ruef  $125,000"^ 
to  be  used  in  getting  favorable  action  on  its  application 
for  a  franchise.  Ruef  gave  Gallagher  $62,000  for  the 
Supervisors.  Ruef  states  that  he  divided  the  re- 
mainder with  Schmitz.  In  this  way,  the  administration 
was  bribed  to  grant  the  Home  Telephone  franchise, 
while  eleven  ^^*  of  the  Supervisors,  a  majority  of  the 
board,  were  bribed  not  to  grant  it. 

The  complications  which  this  created  almost  disrupted 
the  Ruef-Schmitz  combine.  The  difficulty  was  threshed 
out  in  a  Sunday  night  caucus.  Those  who  had  received 
money  from  the  Pacific  States  people,  with  Supervisor 
Boxton  at  their  head,  insisted  that  the  Home  franchise 

173  This  is  the  amount  .sriven  by  Ruef  in  his  "confession."  He 
states  that  he  received  $25,000  when  he  agreed  that  the  Home  Tele- 
phone Company  should  have  the  franchise;  and  $100,000  when  the 
franchise  was  granted.  According  to  liis  statement  he  gave  $65,000 
to  Gallagher  for  the  Supervisors:  $30,000  he  gave  Schmitz;  $30,000 
he  kept  himself.  Gallagher  testified  on  several  occasions  that  he 
received  but  $62,000  from  Ruef.  The  details  of  Ruef's  confessions 
are  not  dependable.  On  Ruef's  own  statement  of  the  basis  of 
division  of  this  particular  bribe  money  among  the  Supervisors, 
Gallagher  received  only  $62,000  of  Home  Telephone  money  from 
him. 

174  Ruef  was  himself  to  blame  for  the  complication,  for  he  had 
given  certain  of  the  Supervisors  to  understand  that  the  purpose  of 
the  Pacific  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  was  to  prevail,  and 
that  the  Home  Telephone  Company  would  not  be  granted  its  fran- 
chise. The  Supei-visors  in  taking  the  Pacific  Telephone  and  Tele- 
graph Company's  money,  not  unreasonably  supposed  they  were 
taking  from  the  favored  of  the  administration.  Supervisor  "Wilson 
in  his  confession  sDid:  "The  first  conversation  I  had  with  Mr. 
Ruef,  affecting  m.oney  matters,  was  on  the  Pacific  States  Telephone 
matters.  I  told  him  that  I  had  been  out  to  dinner  with  Mr.  Halsey, 
and  I  understood  that  everything  was  going  to  be  satisfactory  with 
their  company.     He  (Ruef)  said  that  it  would  terminate  that  way." 

Acting  upon  this  hint.  Wilson  accepted  $5,000  from  Halsey. 
I.,ater  he  told  Ruef  of  having  got  the  money.  Ruef  told  him  that 
he  should  not  have  taken  it.  Wilson  has  testified  that  he  offered 
to  return  it.  "No,"  he  claims  Ruef  replied,  "don't  do  that  just  now. 
Wait  and  see.  I  will  let  you  know  later.  You  might  get  into  a 
trap  by  giving  it  back;  you  had  better  wait." 

Ruef  claims,  however,  that  he  advised  Wilson  to  return  the 
money. 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  i6i 

should  not  be  granted.  On  the  other  hand,  Ruef  and 
Schmitz,  with  the  thousands  of  the  Home  Company  in 
view,  insisted  that  it  should  be.  Both  Ruef  and  Schmitz 
warned  the  Supervisors  that  they  were  perhaps  at  the 
dividing-  of  the  ways. 

"Well,"  replied  Boxton  significantly,  "if  men  cannot 
get  a  thing  through  one  way  they  might  try  and  get  it 
through  in  another." 

Mayor  Schmitz  demanded  of  Boxton  what  he  meant 
by  that.  "Well,"  Boxton  replied  vaguely  but  defiantly, 
"you  know  there  are  other  ways  of  reaching  the  mat- 
ter." "-^ 

But  Boxton  was  unable  to  prevail  against  the  support 
which  Ruef  and  Schmitz  were  giving  the  Home  Tele- 
phone Company.  Although  eleven  of  the  Supervisors 
had  taken  money  from  the  Pacific  States  Company  to 
oppose  the  granting  of  a  franchise  to  the  rival  Home 
Telephone  Company,  all  but  four  of  those  present  at 
the  caucus  decided  to  stand  by  Ruef  and  Schmitz,  and 
voted  in  caucus  to  grant  the  Home  Company  its  fran- 
chise.^''® 

The  next  day,  in  open  board  meeting,  with  Boxton 
still  leading  the  opposition,  the  franchise  was  awarded 
to  the  Home  Telephone  Company. 

175  For  description  of  tiiis  "dividing  of  tlie  ways"  scene,  see 
testimony  of  Supervisor  Wilson,  Transcript  on  Appeal,  The  People 
vs.  Ruef,  page  2843. 

176  Gallagher  in  his  confession  said  of  the  decision  of  the  Su- 
pervisors to  stand  by  Ruef  and  Schmitz:  "Mr.  Wilson  talked  to  a 
niunher  of  those  bovs  (Supervisors  who  had  taken  money  from  the 
Pacific  States's  agent),  he  being  one  of  those  who  had  taken  this 
money,  and  he  told  me  that  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  had 
taken  this  money  that  he  didn't  feel  that  he  wanted  to  stand  out 
from  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Ruef  and  wanted  to  act  with  him  and 
myself  in  the  matter  and  said  that  he  would  talk  to  the  other  boys 
about  it,  and  see  how  they  felt  about  the  proposition  of  voting  for 
the  Home  Telephone  franchise  anyhow." 


1 62  Confessions  of  the  Supervisors 

The  division  of  the  money  received  from  the  Home 
Telephone  Company  people  was  one  of  the  hardest 
problems  in  bribe  distribution  which  Ruef  and  Gallagher 
were  called  upon  to  face. 

The  first  plan  was  to  pay  the  Supervisors  who  had 
at  the  last  supported  the  Home  Telephone  franchise, 
$3500.  At  once  those  Supervisors  who  had,  from  the 
beginning-  remained  faithful  to  the  administration's  sup- 
port of  the  Home  Company  and  had  refused  to  accept 
money  from  Halsey,  pointed  out  that  they  would  receive 
$v3500  only,  while  the  Supervisors  whom  Halsey  had 
bribed  would  get  in  all  $8500 ;  that  is  to  say,  $3500  from 
Gallagher  for  voting  to  grant  the  franchise  and  $5000 
from  Halsey  not  to  grant  it.  It  was,  those  who  had 
remained  true  contended,  inequitable  that  Supervisors 
who  had  been  faithful  to  Ruef  and  Schmitz  from  the 
beginning  should  receive  only  $3500 ;  while  those  who 
had  been  temporarily  bought  away  from  the  administra- 
tion received  $8500. 

The  "justness"  of  this  contention  appealed  to  all.  A 
compromise  was  finally  arranged,  under  which  those  who 
had  stood  out  to  the  end  against  granting  the  Home 
franchise,  should  receive  no  part  of  the  Home  Telephone 
bribe  money;  those  who  had  received  $5000  from  Halsey 
but  finally  voted  for  the  Home  franchise,  were  to  return 
$2500  of  the  $5000  to  Halsey,  and  receive  $3500  from 
Gallagher,  making  the  total  of  the  telephone  bribe  money 
for  each  $6000;  those  who  had  received  nothing  from 
Halsey  were  each  to  be  allowed  $6000  of  the  Home  Tele- 
phone money.  In  this  way  each  Supervisor  who  had 
voted  for  the  Home  franchise  would  get  $6000  for  his 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  163 

vote.  In  the  case  of  four  of  the  Supervisors  the  entire 
$6000  came  from  the  Home  Company.  Gallagher,  too, 
was  one  of  this  class,  all  his  compensation  being  Home 
Telephone  money.  But  Gallagher  received  $10,000. 
Eight  of  the  Supervisors  had  received  money  from  Hal- 
sey,  and  yet  voted  to  give  the  Home  Company  its  fran- 
chise. These  received  $3500  Home  Company  money 
from  Gallagher  and  were  allowed  to  keep  $2500  of  the 
Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  money 
that  Halsey  had  given  them.  Thus  the  Pacific  States 
was  forced  to  pay  the  Supervisors  part  of  the  bribe 
money  they  received  for  granting  its  rival  a  franchise. 
Incidentally,  some  of  the  Supervisors  did  not  return  half 
the  $5000  to  Halsey.  But  this  is  a  phase  of  the  ethics 
of  bribery  upon  which  it  is  unnecessary  to  touch. 

Ruef  regarded  this  unique  discipline  of  the  Pacific 
States  as  just  punishment  for  its  oflfense  of  trying  to 
buy  his  Supervisors  away  from  him.^''^ 

Following  the  telephone  bribery,  came  that  of  the 
United  Railroads  to  secure  the  much-opposed  over-head 
trolley  permit.  On  account  of  this  permit,  Gallagher  tes- 
tified, Ruef  had  given  him  $85,000  to  be  distributed 
among  the  Supervisors. 

Of  this  $85,000,  Gallagher  kept  $15,000  for  himself, 


177  In  his  confession,  Gallagher  stated  that  under  this  arrange- 
ment he  paid  $3,500  each  to  Coffey,  Coleman,  Purey,  Lonergan, 
Mamlock.  Nicholas,  Phillips  and  Wilson;  $6,000  each  to  Davis, 
Duffey,  Harrigan  and  Kelley.  reserving  $10,000  for  himself.  Those 
who  received  no  part  of  the  Home  Telephone  Company  money  were 
Boxton,  Sanderson,  W.nlsh,  McGiishin  and  Rea.  Of  the  five.  Boxton 
and  Sanderson  received  $5,000  each  from  Halsey  of  the  Pacific  Com- 
pany, and  Walsh,  according  to  his  recollection,  $3,500.  McGushin 
and  Ren  received  none  of  the  brihe  money  paid  by  the  two  tele- 
phone companies. 


164         Confessions  of  the  Supervisors 

gave  Wilson  $10,000/'®  and  to  each  of  the  other  Super- 
visors with  the  exception  of  Rea/^^  $4000. 

Gallag-her's  testimony  relative  to  the  offer  of  a  bribe 
in  the  matter  of  the  Parkside  Realty  Company  franchise 
was  quite  as  explicit.  He  swore  that  Ruef  had  stated 
to  him  there  ought  to  be  $750  for  each  Supervisor  in 
this.  Later  on,  with  a  change  in  the  proposed  route,"" 
Ruef  had  told  Gallagher  that  the  amount  would  be  $1000 
to  each  Supervisor.  Gallagher  had  conveyed  this  in- 
formation to  the  Supervisors.  At  the  time  of  Ruef's 
flight,  arrest  and  the  attending  breaking  up  of  his  organ- 
ization, the  Supervisors  were  impatiently  waiting  for  this 
money  to  be  paid."^ 

178  Gallagher  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury,  that  the  additional 
compensation  had  been  given  Wilson  because  he  was  more  useful 
than  any  other  member,  besides  himself,  in  keeping  the  Supervis- 
ors in  line  and  in  passing  information  regarding  prospective  bribe 
money. 

179  Gallagher  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  he  had  paid 
Rea  nothing,  because  he  had  no  confidence  in  Rea's  judgment  and 
self-control.  "I  told  Mr.  Ruef,"  Gallagher  testified,  "I  did  not  care 
to,  that  I  wouldn't  take  the  responsibility  of  dealing  with  Mr.  Rea. 
I  believe  he  was  talking  and  had  talked  about  matters  dealing  with 
me  and  did  not  care  to  have  any  dealings  with  him.  He  (Ruef) 
said,  'Very  well,  I'll  attend  to  him,'  or  'I  will  see  to  that  myself,' 
or  some  such  expression  as  that." 

180  The  original  plan  was  to  have  this  road  on  Twentieth  Avenue. 
But  to  grade  Twentieth  Avenue  would  take  time,  and  cost  upwards 
of  $100,000.  On  the  other  hand.  Nineteenth  Avenue  had  been 
graded,  macadamized,  and  accepted  as  a  boulevard.  The  Parkside 
people  asked  a  change  in  the  purchased  franchise,  to  give  them  the 
boulevard.  But  the  Charter  prohibited  grants  of  franchises  over 
declared  boulevards.  Ruef  concluded  this  provision  could  be  over- 
come by  ordinance.  He  feared  criticism,  but  finally  yielded  to  the 
Parkside  people's  request.  Then  went  word  to  the  Supervisors  of 
increase  in  compensation  in  this  particular  transaction. 

181  Gallagher's  testimony  before  the  Grand  Jury  regarding  the 
promised  bribes  in  the  Parkside  franchise  undertaking  was  as 
follows: 

"Q.  Now,  then,  the  Parkside  trolley,  was  there  an  understand- 
ing in  regard  to  money  being  paid  on  that?  A.  The  Parkside 
realty  company's  franchise  for  street  railway  on  Twentieth  Avenue, 
that  is  what  you  refer  to — on  Nineteenth  Avenue,  that  is  correct; 
it  was  originally  intended  for  Twentieth,  afterward  changed  to 
Nineteenth;  that  is  right  there  was  nothing  paid  to  any  member  of 
the  Board  upon  that  that  I  know  of.     There  were  some  rumors  about 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  165 

One  by  one,  sixteen  of  Gallagher's  associates  went 
before  the  District  Attorney  and  made  full  confession. 
In  every  detail  they  bore  out  Gallagher's  statements. 
When  they  had  done,  the  District  Attorney  had  state- 
ments from  seventeen  ^®-  of  the  eighteen  Supervisors,, 
that  they  had  received  large  sums  of  bribe  money  to  in- 
fluence their  votes  in  matters  in  which  public  service 
corporations  were  concerned ;  he  knew  the  purposes  for 
which  the  bribe  money  had  been  paid ;  he  had  a  state- 
ment from  Gallagher,  corroborated  at  many  points  by 
the  testimony  of  the  other  Supervisors,  that  the  money, 
had  been  furnished  by  Ruef.  Ruef's  testimony  would 
bring  the  bribery  transactions   directly  to  the  doors  of 

It  and  Mr.  Ruef  spoke  to  me  about  it  and  said  there  ought  to  be  a 
payment  of  $750  to  each  member  on  it  and  afterward  said  that  if 
the  thing'  was  changed  from  Twentieth  Avenue  to  the  Nineteenth 
Avenue,  that  there  oug'ht  to  be  $1,000  each  paid. 

"Q.  About  when  did  he  say  it  ought  or  he  would  be  able  to  pay 
them?  A.  He  said  that  he  expected  to,  yes,  sir.  He  did  not  say 
he  was  ready  to  do  so,  on  the  contrary,  has  always  denied  that 
he  had  the  money  to  pay  it  with. 

"Q.  He  never  said  he  had  the  money  before  on  the  other  mat- 
ters?    A.     No. 

"Q.  He  would  just  say  there  will  be  this  much  coming?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

"Q.     And  the  same  way  in  regard  to  this  also?    A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.     $1,000?     A.     Yes,   sir. 

"Q.     And  you  passed  it  out  in  the  same  way?     A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  And  it  was  put  through  with  that  understanding?  A. 
Yes,  sir. 

"Q.     The  only  definite,  was  it,  it  hasn't  come?     A.     Not  yet. 

"Q.  Do  you  know  why  the  money  hasn't  been  given  to  you  yet 
by  Ruef?     A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.  Has  he  given  you  any  reason?  A.  Mr.  Ruef  said  that  the 
amount  has  not  been  paid  to  him. 

"Q.  You  heard  complaints  from  the  members  that  they  had 
been  so   long  about  coming  through?     A.     Yes,   indeed. 

*'Q.     Did  you  make  complaint  to  Ruef  about  it?    A.     Yes,  sir. 

"Q.  Wliat  did  he  say?  A.  He  made  that  excuse  consequently 
that  he  didn't  have  it. 

"Q.     Never  said  that  he  did  not  expect  it?     A.     Did  not." 

182  The  anxiety  on  the  part  of  the  confessing  Supervisors  to  tell 
the  truth  was  pathetic.  WTien  McGushln  began  his  story  he  was 
asked:  "Of  course  this  statement  you  make  is  free  and  voluntary." 
"Yes,"  replied  McGushin,  simply,  "Mr.  Gallagher  himself  told  me 
to  tell  the  truth." 


i66  Confessions  of  the  Supervisors 

those  who  had  bribed.  This  testimony  could  have  been 
had,  had  the  prosecution  agreed  to  give  Ruef  complete 
immunity. 

Ruef  was  a  prisoner  in  charge  of  an  elisor.  He 
knew  that  the  Supervisors  had  confessed.  In  an  agony 
of  indecision  he  sent  for  Gallagher  and  Wilson  to  learn 
from  them  all  that  had  occurred.  ^^^  They  told  him 
that  full  statements  had  been  made  to  the  District  At- 
torney. Ruef  complained  that  Gallagher  should  have 
tried  to  get  into  touch  with  him  before  making  state- 
ments. To  which  Gallagher  replied  that  such  a  course 
would  have  been  impossible. ^^*  Both  Gallagher  and  Wil- 
son advised  Ruef  to  make  terms  with  the  District  Attor- 
ney. Ruef  replied  that  he  would  think  it  over.  Little 
came  of  the  conference.  The  statements  of  the  two  Su- 
pervisors, however,  must  have  shown  Ruef  how  thorough 
the  undoing  of  his  organization  had  been,  and  how  hope- 
less was  his  own  case.  But  Ruef,  sparring  for  time,  and 
pleading  for  complete  immunity,  did  not  make  immediate 
confession  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact  has  not,  up  to  the 


183  "I  want  to  learn  from  your  own  lips,"  he  told  Wilson,  "if 
what  I  have  already  heard  is  true  regarding  your  making  a  state- 
ment to  the  prosecution." 

"I  have  been  thoroughly  informed,"  said  Ruef  in  an  interview 
given  out  later,  "of  everything  that  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Supervisors  are  reported  to  have  told  the  Grand  Jury,  and  I  have 
no  comment  to  make  upon  their  alleged  confessions  at  this  time. 
Later,  however,  I  will  issue  a  statement  which  will  furnish  more 
sensations  in  connection  with  municipal  graft  than  anything  that 
has  been  made  public." 

184  Gallagher  left  the  conference  first.  Wilson  testified  at  the 
graft  trials  that  after  Gallagher  had  gone  Ruef  stated  that  "had  he 
been  in  Gallagher's  place  he  wouldn't  have  made  those  statements 
to   the  prosecution." 

"You  can  never  tell  what  one  will  do  until  he  is  placed  in  Mr. 
Gallagher's  position,"  replied  Wilson,  "we  discussed  the  matter 
fully  for  two  or  three  days  before  he  took  that  step." 


Confessions  of  the  Supervisors  167 

present  writing,  told  the  full  story  of  his  connection  with 
the  public  service  corporations.^^' 

After  the  confessions  of  the  Supervisors,  the  District 
Attorney  left  Ruef  to  himself  and  hastened  the  Super- 
visors before  the  Grand  Jury,  where  they  repeated  their 
miserable  stories.^^^ 

And  then  the  Grand  Jury  took  up  the  task  of  tracing 
the  bribe  money  from  those  who  had  received  it,  to  those 
who  had  paid  it. 

155  The  nearest  Ruef  has  come  to  a  statement  of  his  connec- 
tion with  the  public  service  corporations  is  contained  in  his  story, 
"The  Road  I  Traveled,"  which  appeared  in  the  San  Francisco  Bul- 
letin. The  account  is  inaccurate  and  incomplete.  Nothing,  for 
example,  is  told  by  Mr.  Ruef,  of  the  proposed  Bay  Cities  Water 
Company  deal,  which  at  one  time  he  claimed  to  be  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  he  had  in  view. 

156  The  Supervisors  were  all  examined  before  the  Grand  Jury 
on  the  same  day.  Heney  in  an  affidavit,  filed  in  the  case  of  The 
People  vs.  Calhoun  et  al..  No.  823,  states  that  "one  of  the  reasons 
which  actuated  me  to  examine  all  of  said  Supervisors  on  the  same 
day  was  that  the  newspapers  had  discovered  that  they  had  made 
confessions  on  the  preceding  Saturday,  and  I  wanted  to  make  sure 
that  no  one  of  them  was  tampered  with  by  anj'-one  who  might  be 
interested  in  changing  his  testimony  before  I  succeeded  in  getting 
his  testimony  recorded  by  a  stenographer  in  the  Grand  Jury  room." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money. 

After  the  confessions  of  the  Supervisors,  the  Grand 
Jurors  had  definite,  detailed  knowledg'e  of  the  corruption 
of  the  Union-Labor  party  administration.  The  Grand 
Jurors  knew : 

(1)  That  bribes  aggregating  over  $200,000  had  been 
paid  the  Supervisors. 

(2)  That  of  this  large  amount,  $169,350  passed  from 
Ruef  to  Gallagher  and  by  Gallagher  had  been  divided 
among  members  of  the  board.  The  balance,  the  evi- 
dence showed,  had  been  paid  to  the  Supervisors  direct  by 
T.  V.  Halsey  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  Company. 

(3)  The  amount  of  each  bribe;  the  circumstances  un- 
der which  it  was  paid ;  even  the  character  of  the  cur- 
rency used  in  the  transaction. 

(4)  The  names  of  the  corporations  benefited  by  the 
bribery  transactions,  as  well  as  the  character  of  the  spe- 
cial privileges  which  their  money  had  bought. 

With  the  exception  of  the  Home  Telephone  Company, 
the  names  of  the  directors  of  these  benefiting  corpora- 
tions were  readily  obtainable. ^®^ 


187  The  following  persons  sat  on  the  Boards  of  Directors  of  the 
several  corporations  involved  in  the  graft  disclosures,  either  dur- 
ing 1906  when  the  briberies  were  committed,  or  during  1907  when 
the  exposures  came: 

Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company — N.  W.  Halsey,  E.  J.  de  Sabla, 
John  Martin,  Frank  G.  Drum,  Wm.  H.  Crocker,  N.  D.  Rideout, 
Frank   B.   Anderson,   John   A.    Britton,    Henry  E.    Bothin,    Louis   F. 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money        169 

With  this  data  before  them,  the  Grand  Jurors  pro- 
ceeded to  trace  the  source  of  the  bribe  money. 

Naturally,  men  who  had  long  held  places  of  respecta- 
bility in  the  community  were  slow  to  admit  having'  given 
Ruef  vast  sums,  even  under  the  transparent  subterfuge 
of  paying  him  attorney's  fees.^^^  Some  of  them,  when 
haled  before  the  Grand  Jury,  testified  reluctantly,  and 
only  under  the  closest  questioning.  Others  frankly  stood 
upon  their  constitutional  rights,  and  with  pitiful  attempt 
to  smooth  out  with  studied  phrases  the  harshness  of  the 
only  acceptable  reason  for  their  refusal,  declined  to  tes- 
tify on  the  ground  that  their  testimony  would  tend  to 
incriminate  them. 


Monteagle,  Jos.  S.  Tobin,  G.  H.  McEnerney,  Cyrus  Pierce,  Carl 
Taylor,  F.  W.  M.  McCutcheon. 

Pacific  States  Teleplione  and  Telegraph  Company — Henry  T. 
Scott,  Louis  Glass,  F.  W.  Eaton,  Timothy  Hopkins,  Homer  S.  King, 
F.  G.  Drum,  E.  S.  Pillsbury,  Percy  T.  Morgan,  all  of  San  Francisco; 
J.  C.  Ainsworth.  P.  Bacon,  J.  H.  Thatcher,  C.  H.  Chambreau,  E. 
H.  McCracken,  C.  B.  McLeod,  C.  E.  Hickman,  J.  P.  McNichoIs,  R. 
"W.  Schmeer,  all  of  Portland. 

Parkside  Company— "W.  H.  Crocker,  Wellington  Gregg,  Jr.,  C.  E. 
Green,  J.  J.  Mahony,  W.  H.  Cope,  A.  F.  Morrison,  Hugh  Keenan, 
TVm.  Matson,   J.   M.   O'Brien.  Douglas  S.  Watson,  J.  E.   Green. 

United  Railroads — Patrick  Calhoun,  G.  F.  Chapman,  Geo.  H. 
Davis,  Tirey  L.  Ford,  Benj.  S.  Guiness,  I.  W.  Hellman.  Chas.  Hol- 
brook,  A.  C.  Kains,  J.  Henry  Meyer,  Thornwell  Mullally,  Jos.  S. 
Tobin. 

The  names  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Home  Telephone 
Company,  during  the  period  of  the  bribery  transactions,  has  not, 
so  far  as  the  writer  knows,  been  made  public.  A.  C.  Kains  resigned 
from  the  directorate  of  the  United  Railroads,  and  Jos.  S.  Tobin 
from  the  directorates  of  the  Ignited  Railroads  and  the  Pacific  Gas 
and  Electric  Company,  about  the  time  of  the  disclosures. 

188  The  inconsistency  of  the  "attorney  fee  plea"  is  well  illus- 
trated in  the  United  Railroads  transaction.  Ruef  received  $200,000 
from  the  TTnited  Railroads  because  of  the  trolley  permit.  General 
Tirey  L.  Ford,  head  of  the  United  Railroads  law  department,  to 
which  he  devoted  all  his  time,  was  credited  with  receiving  a  sal- 
ary of  $10,000  a  year.  Thus  Ruef's  single  "fee"  was  as  much  as 
the  United  Railroads  would  have  paid  its  head  lawyer  in  twenty 
years,  almost  a  lifetime  of  professional  str\'ice.  And  Ruef,  it 
must  be  remembered,  in  addition  was  getting  $1,000  a  month  from 
the  United  Railroads — more  than  the  chief  of  that  corporation's 
legal  department  was  receiving. 


lyo       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

Nevertheless,  the  Grand  Jury  succeeded  in  wringing 
from  the  officials  of  the  several  corporations  involved, 
damaging  admissions ;  admissions,  in  fact,  quite  as  start- 
ling as  had  been  the  confessions  of  the  Supervisors. 
The  refusal  of  some  of  those  not  unreasonably  under 
suspicion,  to  testify  was,  too,  quite  as  significant. 

In  the  matter  of  the  bribery  of  the  Supervisors  by  T.  V. 
Halsey,  agent  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Tele- 
graph Company,  the  Grand  Jury  had  information  that 
eleven  Supervisors  had  been  paid  over  $50,000  to  oppose 
the  granting  of  a  franchise  to  the  Home  Telephone 
Company.  A  majority  of  the  payments  were  made  in 
an  unfurnished  suite  of  three  rooms  in  the  Mills  Build- 
ing. Frank  Drum,  a  director  of  the  company,  admitted 
having  engaged  the  rooms  at  Halsey's  request.  E.  J. 
Zimmer,  auditor  for  the  company,  testified  that  Halsey 
held  the  position  of  General  Agent  of  the  company, 
Halsey's  duties,  the  testimony  showed,  were  assigned 
him  by  Louis  Glass,  vice-president  and  general  manager, 
and  for  a  time  acting  president  of  the  company.  Hal- 
sey, under  the  company's  organization,  reported  to  Glass. 
Zimmer  testified  that  Halsey  could  not  spend  the  com- 
pany's money  except  on  the  proper  approval  of  the  ex- 
ecutive officer  of  the  company.  From  October,  1905, 
when  President  Sabin  of  the  company  died,  until  Feb- 
ruary, 1906,  when  Henry  T.  Scott,  Sabin's  successor,  was 
elected.  Glass  acted  as  president  and  as  executive  officer. 
He  had,  according  to  Auditor  Zimmer,  authority  to  ap- 
prove expenditures  made  by  Halsey.  After  Scott's  ele- 
vation to  the  presidency,  either  Glass  or  Scott  could 
have  approved  such  expenditures.     Zimmer  testified  fur- 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money       171 

ther  to  giving  Halsey,  at  Glass's  order/^^  as  high  as 
$10,000  at  a  time.  Halsey  ^^°  gave  no  vouchers  for  these 
large  sums ;  they  did  not  appear  on  the  books ;  ^®^  they 
were  carried  on  tags. 

Zimmer  stated  that  he  did  not  know  for  v/hat  the 
funds  were  used ;  had  merely  followed  out  Glass's  in- 
struction, and  given  Halsey  the  money. 

The  testimony  of  Thomas  Sherwin  threw  some  light 

189  Zimmer  insisted  at  first  tliat  the  total  of  tlie  amounts  which 
he  turned  over  to  Halsey  would  not  exceed  $20,000.  Later  he  ad- 
mitted that  he  had  not  kept  track  of  the  amounts,  and  the  total 
mlg-ht  have  been  $30,000.  This  he  increased  to  $35,000,  and  finally 
stated  that  it  was  "not  over  $40,000,  If  it  was  that."  He  ad- 
mitted that  it  would  have  been  possible  for  Executive  Officer  Glass 
to  have  paid  out  $70,000  without  his  knowledge.  "Checks,"  he 
said,  "could  have  been  signed  without  going  through  me;  could 
have  been  carried  just  the   same   as  this  tag  account  was." 

William  J.  Kennedy,  cashier  and  assistant  treasurer  of  the  com- 
pany, who  had  charge  of  the  "tags,"  stated  that  during  February, 
1906,  considerable  amounts  were  drawn  out  in  this  way,  which 
might  have  totalled  as  high  as  $70,000. 

190  Regarding  the  manner  in  which  money  was  furnished  to 
Halsey,  Zimmer  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  as  follows: 

"Q.  This  $10,000  that  you  gave  him  (Halsey)  under  direction 
of  Mr.  Glass,  in  what  shape  did  you  hand  it  to  him?    A.     Currency. 

"Q.  Did  you  have  the  currency  on  hand  or  send  out  and  get  it? 
A.     Sent  out  and  got  it.     I  went  out  and  got  it. 

"Q.  Where  did  you  get  it?  A.  I  don't  remember,  I  had  to  go 
to  several  banks. 

"Q.  Did  Mr.  Glass  tell  you  he  wanted  you  to  give  it  to  him  in 
currency?     A.     Yes,  sir." 

191  These  admissions  led  to  close  questioning  of  Mr.  Zimmer. 
The  following  is  taken  from  his  testimony  given  before  the  Grand 
Jury: 

"Q.  Now,  in  what  way  did  that  money  appear  in  the  books? 
A.     Didn't  appear  in  the  books. 

"Q.  How  was  it  taken  care  of?  A.  No  voucher  was  ever  made 
for  it. 

"Q.  How  would  your  cash  account  for  it?  A.  It  wasn't  taken 
out  of  the  cash  account,  so  far  as  I  know. 

"Q.  What  was  it  taken  from?  A.  By  check  issued  on  the 
regular  bank  account. 

"Q.  Who  was  the  check  made  payable  to?  A.  Baton,  treas- 
urer, the  same  as  other  coin  checks  are  issued,  coin  or  currency. 

"Q.  It  would  have  appeared  somewhere  in  the  books,  that  check, 
that  amount  would  be  deducted  from  the  bank  account?  A.  Yes, 
sir;  but  carried  in  the  expense  account  of  the  cash  suspense. 

"Q.  Leave  a  tag  with  you?  Leave  a  tag,  would  you?  A. 
Yes." 


172       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

upon  the  bookkeeping  methods  followed.  Sherwin  had 
been  traveling  auditor  for  the  American  Bell  Telephone 
Company,  which  concern  owned  51  per  cent,  of  the  stock 
of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company. 
Later  he  took  Zimmer's  place  as  auditor  of  the  Pacific 
States  Company. 

Mr.  Sherwin  admitted  that  some  of  Mr.  Halsey's 
"special  expenses,"  at  least,  were  finally  charged  to  the 
company's  legal  department. ^^^ 

Passing  from  the  investigation  of  the  bribery  transac- 
tions of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph 
Company  to  the  activities  of  the  Home  Telephone  Com- 
pany, the  Grand  Jury  examined  prominent  business  men 
of  Los  Angeles  as  well  as  of  San  Francisco. 

The  plan  of  operation  followed  by  the  capitalists  be- 
hind this  enterprise  was  to  organize  a  construction  com- 
pany, whose  part  was  to  establish  the  plants,  put  them 

192  Before  the  Grand  Jury,  Sherwin  was  closely  questioned  as  to 
one  of  Mr.  Halsey's  "Special  expense"  claims.  The  following  is 
from  his  testimony: 

"Q.  Now,  then,  that  shows  that  it  was  charged  against  what 
fund?  A.  That  got  in  the  legal  expense  finally,  we  charged  it  to 
Reserve  for  Contingent  Liabilities,  and  each  month  we  credit  that 
account,  I  have  for,?otten  maybe  $2,000,  and  charge  it  to  legal  to 
make  it   run  even  in  the  expense  each  month. 

"Q.  Why  does  it  ^o  to  legal?  A.  Because — instead— to  what 
else  would  it  go? 

"Q.  What  makes  it  legal?  A.  Oh,  that's  just  a  subdivision  of 
our  expense. 

"Q.  Was  this  $600  legal  expenses?  A.  I  don't  know  what  it 
was. 

"Q.  Who  told  you  to  put  it  under  legal  expenses?  A.  You 
mean  who  told  us  to  put  it  in  that  account? 

"Q.  There  is  nothing  on  that  paper  that  indicates  that  it  goes 
into  legal  expense?     A.     No. 

"Q.  Now,  then,  you  say  it  was  finally  charged  to  the  legal  de- 
partment. Why?  A.  Simply  because  everything  that  is  charged 
to  that   reserve  finally  gets   into  legal   expense. 

"Q.  Everything  that  is  charged  to  that  reserve  fund?  A.  Tes, 
that  reserve  fund  is  charged  off  for  legal  expense. 

"Q.  And  what  is  the  reason  for  that?  A.  For  charging  it  to 
legal? 

"Q.  Yes.  A.  For  charging  it  to  legal — because — I  don't  know 
the  reason — it  is  always  done  that  way." 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money        173 

into  operation  and  turn  them  over  to  the  operating  com- 
panies, taking-  their  pay  in  the  securities  of  the  local  op- 
erating company.  Thus,  at  San  Francisco,  the  Empire 
Construction  Company  played  an  important  part  in  the 
Home  Telephone  Company  enterprise. 

As  Heney  put  it,  the  Empire  Construction  Company 
received  the  most  benefit  from  the  granting  of  the  Home 
Telephone  franchise.  The  Empire  Construction  Com- 
pany furnished  at  least  part  of  the  money  that  went  into 
the  fusion  campaign  fund  in  1905.  Investigation  showed 
that  25  per  cent,  of  the  stock  of  the  Empire  Construction 
Company  belonged  to  men  who  were  in  the  construction 
solely,  while  75  per  cent,  was  in  the  hands  of  men  who 
were  financing  the  enterprise.  This  last  block  of  stock 
at  the  time  of  the  investigation  was  divided  among 
James  H.  Adams  and  Thomas  W.  Phillips  of  the  Adams- 
Phillips  Company,  A.  B.  Cass,  Gerald  S.  Torrance  and 
A.  K.  Detweiler.  Detweiler  could  not  be  found.  Adams, 
Cass  and  Torrance,  after  answering  some  of  the  ques- 
tions put  to  them,  availed  themselves  of  their  constitu- 
tional privilege,  and  refused  to  make  further  answers. 
The  books  of  the  Adams-Phillips  Company  disappeared 
and  employees  of  that  company  undertook  to  evade  an- 
swering questions  regarding  the  disappearance,  on  the 
ground  that  they  might  incriminate  themselves.  But  a 
sharp  order  from  the  Superior  Court  brought  out  their 
testimony.  However,  none  of  them  gave  testimony  that 
led  to  the  discovery  of  the  missing  volumes. 

But  the  general  trend  of  the  testimony  went  to  show 
that  the  responsible  agent  for  the  Empire  Construction 
Company   and   the   Plome   Telephone   Company   in   San 


174       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

Francisco  was  A.  K.  Detweiler.  The  testimony  showed 
Detweiler  to  have  been  at  Ruef's  office  in  consultation 
with  Ruef  and  Supervisor  Gallagher;  he  was  active  in 
every  move  that  was  made  on  behalf  of  the  Empire  Con- 
struction Company  and  of  the  Home  Telephone  Com- 
pany in  San  Francisco,  and  had  the  disbursing  of  the 
funds. 

Incidentally,  through  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Fred  But- 
terfield,  a  representative  of  Adolphus  Busch,  the  brewer, 
the  Grand  Jury  learned  that  a  third  telephone  company. 
the  United  States  Independent,  seeking  a  franchise  to  do 
business  in  San  Francisco,  would  have  bid  for  the  fran- 
chise which  the  Home  Company  received,  had  not  the 
franchise  been  so  worded  that  only  the  telephone  system 
controlled  by  the  Home  people  could  be  operated  under 
it.  Butterfield  stated  that  his  company,  made  up  of  re- 
sponsible capitalists,  considered  the  franchise  worth 
something  over  a  million  dollars,  and  was  prepared  to 
bid  up  to  a  million  dollars,  if  necessary,  to  get  it.  The 
Home  Company  paid  San  Francisco  $25,000  for  the 
franchise.  Butterfield  testified  that  his  company  had  in- 
tended to  invest  $4,500,000  in  the  San  Francisco  enter- 
prise, and  that  Ruef  knew  of  the  extent  of  the  com- 
pany's plans.  With  such  testimony,  the  assertions  of 
Ruef's  partisans  that  opposition  to  the  Ruef-Schmitz  ad- 
ministration retarded  development  of  the  community 
compare  curiously.^^^ 

The  Grand  Jury  could  not  secure  the  attendance  of 
Mr.  Detweiler,  for  about  the  time  of  the  investigation 
Mr.  Detweiler  mysteriously  disappeared.    The  investiga- 

193  See  Supervisors'  letter  to  the  Examiner,  footnote  64,  page  62. 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money        175 

tion  into  the  affairs  of  the  Home  Company  had,  there- 
fore, to  be  conckided  without  Mr.  Detweiler's  testimony. 
Following  the  policy  of  the  stockholders  of  the  Em- 
pire Construction  Company,  the  officials  of  the  United 
Railroads  refused  to  testify.  President  Patrick  Cal- 
houn ^°*  and  Thornwell  Mullally,  assistant  to  the  presi- 
dent, when  given  opportunity  to  state  their  side  of  the 
case  under  oath,  stood  upon  their  constitutional  rights, 
and  declined  to  give  evidence  that  might  incriminate 
them.^^^  They  were  accordingly  excused  from  the  Grand 
Jurv  room. 


194  Calhoun  returned  to  San  Francisco  April  10.  In  Interviews 
published  in  the  San  Francisco  papers  of  April  12,  Calhoun  em- 
phatically denied  all  knowledge  of  the  bribery  transactions.  In  his 
interview  in  the  Chronicle  he  said: 

"I  wish  to  go  on  record  before  the  people  of  San  Francisco  as 
stating  that  not  one  of  the  officers  or  legal  counsel  of  the  United 
Railroads  of  San  Francisco  or  the  United  Railroads  Investment 
Company  of  New  Jersey  ever  paid,  authorized  to  be  paid,  approved 
of  paying  or  knew  that  one  dollar  was  paid  to  secure  the  passage 
of  the  trolley  franchise  ordinance  by  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and 
if  I  had  known  that  one  dollar  was  paid  for  the  purpose  of  secur- 
ing this  franchise  I  would  not  have  accepted  it." 

195  The  refusal  of  Calhoun  and  Mullally  to  testify  created  a  sen- 
sation, even  in  those  sensational  times.  The  Chronicle  in  Its  issue 
of  May  4,  1907,  printed  the  following  account  of  the  Incident: 

"For  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  the  examination  of  witnesses 
before  this  Grand  Jury,  Heney  was  careful  not  to  instruct  the 
prospective  witnesses  as  to  their  legal  rights.  Instead  he  merely 
asked  them  if  they  were  already  familiar  with  their  rights  under 
the  law. 

"  'I  am  aware,'  said  Calhoun,  who  was  the  first  to  be  called, 
'that  anything  I  might  tell  this  body  might  be  used  against  me.' 

"  'Witli  that  imderstanding  are  you  willing  to  become  a  witness 
before  this  Grand  Jury?"  asked  Heney. 
-    "  'I  am  not,'  was  Calhoun's  response. 

"The  jurymen  who  had  leaned  forward  as  the  reply  of  the  presi- 
dent hung  on  his  lips  sank  back  in  their  seats. 

"  'That  is  all,  Mr.  Calhoun,'  said  Heney  to  the  president,  and 
then  going  to  the  door  he  said  to  the  bailiff,  'Call  Mr.  Mullally.' 

"Mullallv's  examination  was  identical  with  that  of  his  superior's 
and  he  was  permitted  to  go.  Neither  President  Calhoun  nor  As- 
sistant Mullallv  will  be  called  again  to  the  jury  room." 

Calhoun  Issued  the  following  statement  of  his  refusal  to  testify: 

"When  called  before  the  Grand  Jury  this  afternoon  and  in- 
formed that  it  had  under  investigation  the  alleged  bribery  of  pub- 
lic officials  bv  the  United  Railroads,  we  declined  to  be  sworn  and  in 


176       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

But  the  employees  of  the  company  did  not  escape  so 
easily.  When,  for  example,  George  Francis,  William 
M.  Abbott,  George  B.  Willcutt  and  Celia  McDermott 
refused  to  answer  questions  p3^,to  them  in  the  Grand 
Jury  room,  they  were  haled  before  the  Superior  Court, 
where  they  were  informed  that  they  must  testify. 

In  spite  of  the  hostility  of  these  witnesses,  the  prose- 
cution succeeded  in  securing  a  wealth  of  data  regarding 
$200,000  which  passed  into  the  hands  of  Tirey  L.  Ford 
and,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  prosecution,  from 
Ford  to  Ruef. 

The  prosecution  established  the  fact  that  two  days 
before  Mayor  Schmitz  signed  the  trolley  permit,  that  is 
to  say,  on  May  22,  1906,  Patrick  Calhoun,  as  president 
of  the  United  Railroads,  received  by  telegraphic  trans- 
fer from  the  East  to  the  United  States  Mint  at  San 
Francisco,  $200,000.^^*^  Two  days  later,  the  day  the 
trolley  permit  was  signed,  President  Calhoun  took  Ford 

order  that  our  action  may  not  be  misconstrued,  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  these  facts: 

"For  months  past  the  public  prints  have  been  full  of  charges 
traceable  to  certain  persons  connected  with  tlie  prosecution  that 
they  had  positive  evidence  that  the  United  Railroads  had  spent  not 
less  than  $450,000  in  bribing  the  officials  of  this  city.  I  have  re- 
peatedly stated  that  neither  I  nor  the  United  Railroads,  nor  any 
official  of  the  United  Railroads,  had  bribed  anyone,  authorized  any 
bribery,  knew  of  any  bribery  or  approved  of  any  bribery.  This 
statement  I  now  fully  reaffirm.  It  is  not  for  us  nor  any  officer  of 
our  company  to  disprove  these  grave  charges.  It  is  for  those 
making  them  to  prove  them.  We  do  not  now  care  to  discuss  their 
motives.  We  know  that  they  cannot  produce  any  truthful  evidence 
connecting  us  or  any  officer  of  the  United  Railroads  with  this  al- 
leged  crime. 

"We  relied,  in  declining  to  be  sworn,  upon  the  broad  Constitu- 
tional right  of  every  American  citizen  that  a  defendant  cannot  be 
called  as  a  witness,  and  upon  the  justice,  fairness  and  common 
sense  of  the  Grand  Jury,  to  whom  we  look  for  complete  vindica- 
tion without  offering  one  word  in  our  own  behalf." 

196  For  several  weeks  after  the  great  fire  of  April  18-19-20,  1906, 
the  banks  were  closed  at  San  Francisco.  Money  could,  however, 
during  this  period,  be  transferred  to  San  Francisco,  through  the 
United  States  mint. 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money        177 

to  the  Mint  and  instructed  Superintendent  of  the  Mint 
Leach  to  give  Ford  $50,000  of  the  $200,000.  Ford 
told  Leach  that  he  wanted  currency.  The  currency  was 
finally  secured  by  exchanging  gold  for  bills  at  the  Mint 
headquarters  of  the  relief  work  then  being  carried  on 
in  San  Francisco.  These  bills,  it  was  shown,  were  all 
in  small  denominations,  having  been  sent  to  San  Fran- 
cisco from  all  parts  of  the  country  by  individual  sub- 
scribers to  the  relief  fund. 

This  money  was  taken  away  from  the  Mint,  the  tes- 
timony showed,  by  Ford  and  William  M.  Abbott. 

Soon  after,  Ruef  loaned  Supervisor  Rea  ^®^  $3500. 
By  a  curious  trick  of  fate  Rea  had  leased  a  piece  of 
property  from  Rudolph  Spreckels.  In  payment  on  this 
lease  he  used  the  money  that  Ruef  had  loaned  him. 
This  money  was  all  in  bills  of  small  denominations. 
Late  in  July  Ruef  gave  Gallagher  $45,000,  all  in  bills 
of  small  denominations,  as  partial  settlement  with  the 
Supervisors  for  granting  the  trolley  permit.  Gallagher 
gave  Wilson  of  this  money  $5000,  and  the  other  Super- 
visors with  the  exception  of  Rea  $2000  each.  They  all 
understood  that  it  was  because  of  the  trolley  franchise 
deal.     The  balance  Gallagher  retained  for  himself. 

The  confessing  Supervisors,  with  the  exception  of 
Wilson  and  Rea,  testified  that  their  first  payment  on 
account  of  the  trolley  permit  was  $2000  each,  in  bills 
of  small  denominations.  Wilson  testified  to  having  re- 
ceived $5000. 

Later,  Ford,  making  two  trips  to  the  Mint,  drew  out 

197  Gallagher  had  notified  Ruef  that  he  would  not  deal  with 
Rea  in  the  trolley  transaction.  Ruef,  Gallagher  alleged,  had  agreed 
to  attend  to  Rea's  case  himself.     See  Chapter  XIII. 


178       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

the  $150,000  balance  of  the  $200,000  that  had  been  tele- 
graphed to  Calhoun's  credit.  As  before,  the  Mint  paid 
him  in  gold,  and  as  before.  Ford  exchanged  the  gold 
for  currency.  But  instead  of  getting  bills  of  small  de- 
nomination, on  the  two  trips  which  Ford  made  for  that 
$150,000,  he  secured  fifty  and  one  hundred-dollar  bills. 

On  the  day  that  Ford  drew  the  last  of  that  $200,000 
from  the  Mint,  an  agent  in  the  employ  of  the  prosecu- 
tion followed  Ruef  from  his  office  to  the  car  barns  in 
which  Ford's  office  was  then  located.  A  few  days  later 
Ruef  gave  Gallagher  $40,000  in  fifty  and  one  hundred- 
dollar  bills,  the  greater  part  of  which  Gallagher  dis- 
tributed among  the  Supervisors  as  second  and  final  pay- 
ment on  account  of  the  granting  of  the  trolley  permit. 

In  the  Parkside  deal,  the  Grand  Jury  had  little  dif- 
ficulty in  tracing  the  money  involved.  William  H. 
Crocker,^^^  a  capitalist  of  large  affairs,  who  owned  the 
largest  interest  in  the  company,  showed  astonishing  igno- 
rance of  the  management.  The  Grand  Jury  learned 
little  from  him. 

But  those  interested  in  the  enterprise  with  Crocker 
not  only  told  how  half  the  money  was  paid  Ruef,  but 
how  the  books  had  been  manipulated  to  conceal  the 
payment. 

198  Crocker  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury,  iiowever,  that  he 
had  Icnown  Ruef  for  many  years.  "He  (Ruef)  and  my  brother-in- 
law,  Prince  Poniatowslti,"  said  Croclter,  "both  being  French,  and 
both  being  pretty  clever  men,  struck  up  quite  a  friendship  to- 
getlier  and  through  that  means  I  used  to  see  more  or  less  of  Ruef 
and  that  was  one  of  those  peculiar  friendships  that  spring  up  with 
people  who  are  not  identified  and  not  connected  in  any  way  what- 
ever in  any  business  enterprise,  sprang  up  between  Ruef  and  my- 
self, and  when  he  told  me  that  in  my  office  it  didn't  surprise  me 
a  bit." 

Crocker  had  testified  that  Ruef  had  promised  to  do  all  he  could 
to  get  him  his  franchise,  and  wouldn't  want  a  dollar  from  Crocker, 
or  from  the  institution  with  which  Crocker  was  connected. 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money       179 

Ruef,  according  to  the  testimony  of  officials  of  the 
company,  had  first  demanded  $50,000  as  price  for  his 
employment  to  put  the  franchise  through,  but  had  finally 
agreed  to  take  $30,000.  This  amount,  officials  of  the 
company  testified,  was  provided  by  drawing  two  checks, 
one  in  favor  of  H.  P.  Umbsen  and  the  second  in  the 
name  of  Douglass  S.  Watson,  secretary  of  the  Parkside 
Company.  Umbsen  and  Watson  thereupon  deeded  to 
the  Parkside  Company  two  parcels  of  land.  The  trans- 
action was  then  charged  to  the  purchase  of  property.^^^ 


199  Of  this  manipulation  of  the  books,  President  J.  E.  Green,  of 
the   Parkside  Company,   testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  as  follows: 

"Q.  How  was  the  transaction  to  appear  in  the  hooks?  How 
was  the  property  account  to  be  charged  with  It?  It  would  have 
to  show  some  property.  A.  It  was  charged  for  a  block  that  was 
purchased  from  Watson  and  Umbsen,   a  block  of  land. 

"Q.     Did  you  tell  Watson  to  do  that?    A.     I  believe  I  did. 

"Q.  How  did  they  get  paid  for  the  land?  A.  They  deeded 
this  block  which  they  had  to  the  company  and  the  company  in  turn 
executed  a  deed  to  them,  returning  the  land  to  them,  simply  a 
matter  of  bookkeeping. 

"Q.  Was  the  company's  deed  put  on  record?  From  them  to  the 
company?    A.     I  rather  think  so. 

"Q.  What  was  the  purpose  of  that?  A.  To  get  a  charge  to  the 
property  account  for  the  expenditure  of  that  amount  of  money. 

"Q.  What  was  the  reason  for  charging  it  to  property  account? 
A.  Every  expenditure  that  was  made  was  charged  to  property 
account  with   the  idea  the  property  had  to  pay  it  back. 

"Q.  Did  you  always  go  through  the  form  with  every  expense 
that  wasn't  actually  a  piece  of  property,  did  you  go  through  a 
form  of  deeding  a  piece  of  property  and  then  deeding  it  back?  A. 
No,  sir. 

"Q.  What  was  the  reason  of  doing  it  in  this  Instance?  A. 
Because — other  things — there  was  a  case — grading,  sewering  or 
fencing  the  blocks  when  they  spoke  for  itself. 

"Q.  I  don't  see  how  it  helped  you;  it  went  to  the  property  ac- 
count and  the  property  went  right  out;  don't  see  how  it  helped  you 
any.     A.     It   had   to  be  charged  to  something,   Mr.   Heney. 

"Q.  Why  couldn't  it  be  charged  to  what  it  was,  attorneys'  fees? 
A.     Because  attorneys'  fees  were  charged  against  property  account. 

"Q.  Were  Morrison  &  Cope's  fees  charged  up  as  a  piece  of 
property  and  did  they  go  through  a  rigmarole  of  deeding  a  piece 
of  property  too?  A.  No;  their  fees  or  any  other  expense  against 
the  property  interests. 

"Q.  Didn't  they  go  into  the  books  as  a  fee  for  Morrison  &  Cope 
and  charged  as  expenses  against  property?  A.  Charged  direct  to 
property. 

"Q.  As  expense?  A.  Don't  know  as  expense;  it  was  charged 
to  property,   showing  that  we  had  that   much  money  in  property; 


i8o       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

The  property  was  deeded  back  to  Umbsen  and  Watson 
at  the  same  time,  but  these  last  deeds  were  not  imme- 
diately recorded. 

Watson  cashed  the  checks  at  the  Crocker- Woolworth 
Bank,  of  which  William  H.  Crocker  was  president.  He 
testified  that  he  received  currency  for  them. 

The  $30,000  he  took  to  G.  H.  Umbsen.  Half  the 
$30,000  Umbsen  paid  Ruef. 

At  the  time  of  the  exposure,  Umbsen  ^°°  testified  he 

when  we  got  through  selling  anything  over,  that  was  profit  in  our 
favor. 

"Q.  It  appeared  on  the  books  as  having  been  paid  to  Morrison 
&  Cope  for  attorneys'  fees?  A.  Can't  say  without  seeing  the 
books. 

"Q.     Ordinary  way  of  keeping  books?    A.     Yes. 

"Q.  You  didn't  cover  up  anything  you  paid  to  Morrison  &  Cope 
by  putting  through  the  hands  of  the  secretary?     A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.  Why  did  you  cover  up  this  in  connection  with  Ruef?  A.  I 
don't  know;  suppose  the  property  account  is  probably  the  proper 
one  to  charge  it  to. 

"Q.     Only  explanation  of  it?    A.    Yes,  sir." 

200  Early  in  the  graft  investigation  Detective  William  J.  Burns, 
with  studied  carejessness,  dropped  a  remark  in  the  presence  of  a 
salesman  of  the  Parkside  Company,  that  he  had  heard  money  was 
being  used  in  the  Parkside  case.  Soon  after,  Thomas  L.  Hender- 
son, secretary  of  the  company,  received  word  from  William  I.  Bro- 
beck,  of  the  law  firm  of  Morrison,  Cope  &  Brobeck,  attorney  for  the 
Parkside  Company,  to  call  at  that  firm's  law  office.  Of  the  inci- 
dent.  Henderson  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  as  follows: 

"Q.  His  first  question  to  you  was  what?  A.  We  went  in 
there.  He  said,  Mr.  Henderson,  I  am  going  to  talk  to  you  about 
Parkside  and  he  said,  have  you  an  attorney?  I  said,  no.  I  have 
no  attorney.  He  says,  it  might  be  well  for  you  to  get  an  attorney. 
I  said,  all  right.  Mr.  Brobeck,  I  will  take  you  for  an  attorney.  He 
said,   all  right,  I  will  take  you  for  a  client. 

"Q.  Then  what  was  said?  A.  Then  he  spoke,  he  said,  you 
know  about  that  remark  made  by  Mr.  Burns  at  Nineteenth  and  H. 
I  replied  ho'v\'-  I  got  the  remark  from  Hooper  who  was  the  sales- 
man out  there  and  I  had  passed  it  off.  saying  I  did  not  want  to 
talk  about  it.  Then  he  said  to  me,  T  can't  remember  just  the  words, 
but  his  advice  to  me  was  not  to  say  anything  about  it.  I  told  him 
certainly,  I  would  not.  Then  he  spoke  about  Umbsen.  Could  I 
communicate  with  Gus?  And  I  told  him  I  could  on  the  4th  of  the 
month,  he  was  then  between  Havana  and  Florida,  and  would  ar- 
rive in  New  York  about  the  4th.  Do  you  think  it  would  be  advisable 
to  telegraph  or  write  to  him  not  to  say  anything?  I  said:  Oh,  no, 
I  don't  see  any  necessity  for  doing  that. 

"Q.  What  was  the  remark  as  you  heard  it  that  Bums  made? 
A.  We  were  coming  down  on  the  Sutter  street  car,  Mr.  Kernan 
and    myself,    when    Ed    Hooper,    salesman,    spoke    to    us    and    said: 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money       i8i 

was  withholding  the  second  payment  until  the  franchise 
should  be  put  through.-"^ 

In  the  gas-rate  case,  the  Grand  Jury  found  that  the 
corporation  that  would,  in  the  final  analysis,  benefit  by 
the  increase  in  gas  rates,  was  the  Pacific  Gas  and  Elec- 
tric Company.  The  four  responsible  men  in  this  com- 
pany were  found  to  be  N.  W.  Halsey,  John  Martin, 
Eugene  de  Sabla  and  Frank  G.  Drum.  Halsey  was  out 
of  the  State  for  the  greater  part  of  the  time  and  Cyrus 
Bierce.  acting  as  treasurer  of  the  corporation,  looked 
after  his  interests.  This  narrowed  the  responsibility 
down  to  de  Sabla,  Martin  and  Drum. 

I  had  a  distinguished  visitor  yesterday.  I  said,  who;  he  said,  Mr. 
Burns,  the  detective.  He  said,  I  knew  something  about  the  tele- 
phone cases.  I  say  what  he  said,  a  little  something.  He  asked 
me  about  that  and  started  for  the  automobile  and  when  he  got 
there,  he  turned  around  and  said,  another  thing,  I  want  to  ask  you 
about,  I  heard  Ruef  got  $30,000  from  Parkside.  "WTio  would  be  the 
m.an  to  see.  I  am  only  out  here  selling  land  and  don't  know  any- 
thing about  that.  I  had  been  here  with  Watson  when  he  w^as  agent 
and  when  ITmbsen  took  charge  he  kept  me  in  the  same  job.  He 
was  the  salesman  out  there,  that  was  at  that  time  they  had  this 
automobile  race  and  I  turned  around  and  said:  I  see  the  Oldsmo- 
bile  won  the  race  in  Los  Angeles,  because  I  didn't  want  to  continue 
the   conversation   with   him. 

"Q.  Did  Brobeck,  in  his  conversation,  tell  you  where  he  got 
the  information  that  Bums  had  been  out  there?  A.  No  sir^  he  did 
not. 

"Q.  Did  he  tell  you  that  he  knew  what  Burns  had  said?  A.  The 
impression  I  got  was  that  he  knew.  I  don't  remember  his  sa^ying  in 
just  so  many  words. 

"Q.  He  referred  to  the  statement  made  by  Burns?  A.  He  may 
have  made  the  remark  that  you  know  about  what  was  said  out 
there. 

"Q.  At  the  time  you  talked  about  your  having  an  attorney 
did  ho  tell  you  to  send  him  some  money?  A.  After  we  finished  he 
said,  'Mr.  Henderson,  you  had  better  send  me  pay  for  this  inter- 
view.' I  said  what?  and  he  said  five  or  ten  dollars  and  when  I  got 
to  the  office,  I  mailed  him  a  check  for  $10." 

201  Ruof's  version  of  the  affair,  as  Ruef  gave  it  before  the 
Grand  Jury,  was:  "Mr.  Umbsen  stated  to  me  that  wnth  a  great 
deal  of  difficulty,  he  had  been  able  to  persuade  the  people  interested 
to  allow  me  this  fee.  I  thereupon  told  Mr.  Gallagher  that  I  had 
made  arrangements  to  secure  for  myself  an  attorney's  fee  in  the 
matter  and  I  would  allow  him  something  over  $13,500  as  his  pro- 
portion of  the  fee.  Mr.  Gallagher  estimated  what  it  would  require 
for  his  services  in  the  matter  and  we  had  discussed  would  the 
Supervisors   accept   that   amount." 


i82       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

De  Sabla  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  Ruef 
was  not,  to  his  knowledge,  at  any  time  on  the  pay  roll 
of  the  company.  Martin  swore  that  he  knew  of  no 
money  that  had  been  expended  in  connection  with  the 
fixing  of  the  gas  rates,  and  expressed  himself  as  being 
as  surprised  as  anyone  at  the  confessions  of  the  Super- 
visors to  having  received  money  after  the  gas  rates  had 
been  fixed.  Later,  after  Ruef  had  plead  guilty  to  extor- 
tion, both  de  Sabla  and  Martin  refused  to  testify  further 
before  the  Grand  Jury.^"^ 

Mr.  Frank  G.  Drum,  when  called  before  the  Grand 
Jury,  stated  that  he  had  had  no  conversation  with  Ruef 
in  reference  to  the  fixing  of  the  gas  rates.^"^  But  later 
Ruef  told  the  Grand  Jury  that  the  money  which  he  had 
turned  over  to  Gallagher  in  the  gas-rate  transaction  had 
come  from  Drum.^°* 

202  John  Martin's  statement,  when  he  refused  to  testify,  fur- 
nishes fair  example  of  the  attitude  of  those  who  became  involved 
in  the  graft  scandal.     The  Grand  Jury  record  shows: 

"John  Martin  recalled. 

"Foreman  (to  witnessl.  You  have  already  been  sworn,  so  you 
can  consider  yourself  under  oath.  Mr.  Martin:  I  desire  to  stand 
on  my  constitutional  right  and  not  to  testify  further. 

"Mr.  Heney:  If  you  feel  that  your  testimony  might  have  a  ten- 
dency to  subject  you  to  prosecution — .  A.  (interrupting).  No.  not 
that.  I  am  not  so  advised  that  that  is  necessary.  My  constitutional 
rights  are  broader  than  that,  I  am  advised. 

"Q.     Then  you  don't  desire  to  testify?    A.     No,  sir. 

"Mr.  Heney:     All  right." 

203  Mr.  Frank  G.  Drum  testified  as  follows: 

"Q.     Do  you  know  Abraham  Ruef?    A.    Met  him. 

"Q.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  about  that  time? 
A.     No,  sir. 

"Q.  I  mean  a  conversation  with  reference  to  the  rates?  A.  No, 
not  that  I  know  anything  about." 

204  Ruef  on  this  point  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  as  fol- 
lows : 

"I  received  from  Mr.  Frank  G.  Drum,  $20,000  as  an  attorney's 
fee  as  spoken  of  between  ourselves,  about  the  time  that  the  gas 
rates  were  being  fixed.  Of  that  money,  I  gave  to  Mr.  Gallagher 
for  the  Board  of  Supervisors  about,  as  I  remember  it  now,  $14,000. 
It  may  have  been  a  few  hundred  dollars  more  or  less.  I  think 
about  $14,000.  Mr.  Drum  spoke  to  me  about  employing  me  in 
the  service  of  the  company  some  month  or  two  before,  I  believe, 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money        183 

The  first  to  be  indicted  because  of  these  transactions 
was  Ruef.  Sixty-five  indictments  were  on  March  20 
returned  against  him.  Eighteen  were  based  upon  the 
bribing  of  Supervisors  in  the  so-called  fight  trust  mat- 
ter ;  seventeen  upon  the  bribing  of  Supervisors  in  fixing 
the  gas  rates ;  thirteen  upon  the  bribing  of  Supervisors 
in  the  matter  of  the  sale  of  the  Home  Telephone  Com- 
pany franchise ;  seventeen  in  the  matter  of  granting  the 
over-head  trolley  permit. 

On  the  same  day,  ten  indictments  were  returned 
against  Theodore  V.  Halsey,  of  the  Pacific  States  Tele- 
phone and  Telegraph  Company,  for  the  bribery  of  Su- 
pervisors to  prevent  the  sale  of  a  franchise  to  a  compe- 
ting telephone  company.  A  number  of  indictments  were 
foiuid  against  A.  K.  Detweiler,  for  bribing  Supervisors 
in  the  matter  of  the  sale  of  the  Home  Telephone  fran- 

and  engaged  me  as  attorney  to  represent  the  interests,  as  I  under- 
stood it  from  him,  which  he  represented  in  the  company,  at  $1000 
a  month,  of  whicli  I  received,  I  believe,  for  two  or  three  months. 
At  the  time  of  the  fixing  of  the  gas  rates  some  of  the  Supervisors, 
as  I  was  informed  by  Supervisor  Gallaglier,  insisted  upon  fixing 
an  extremely  low  rate,  such  a  rate  as  would  have  been  ruinous  to 
the  business  of  the  company,  a  rate  which  neither  I  nor  any  one 
who  had  looked  up  the  o.uestion  would  have  considered  under  any 
circumstances  to  be  reasonable,  proper  or  maintainable,  and  said 
they  were  determined  absolutely  to  reduce  those  rates.  The  matter 
was  brought  up  at  one  of  the  Sunday  evening  caucuses  and  some 
of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  insisted  that  the  board 
had  been  pledged  by  its  platform  to  a  rate  of  75c.  per  thousand 
feet;  they  thought  that  was  even  too  much  and  made  some  strong 
speeches  and  others  maintained  the  75c.  rate  and  they  contemplated 
fixing  the  75c.  rate  that  evening,  that  is  to  say,  agreeing  to  do  It 
at  the  proper  time  which  I  suppose  was  a  week  thereafter.  In  the 
meantime,  the  company  sustained  a  heavy  fire  loss,  not  the  fire 
of  April  18th,  but  the  previous  fire,  wliich  caused  them  a  great  deal 
of  damage,  and  I  told  Mr.  Drum  that  it  would  be  necessary  for 
me,  in  order  to  protect  the  interests  of  the  company  and  the  inter- 
erts  which  he  represented,  to  luive  an  additional  attorney's  fee  and 
I  told  him  that  I  thought  it  would  require  $20,000.  He  considered 
the  matter  and  one  day,  a  day  or  two  afterward,  he  agreed  to  pay 
me  the  additional  attorney's  fee  of  $20,000  which  I  thereafter 
received. 

"Q.  Where  did  the  conversation  take  place  in  which  you  told 
him  about  the  necessity  of  having  the  $20,000?  A.  At  his  office  in 
the  Mills  Building." 


184       The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money 

chise.  The  Detweiler  indictments,  thirteen  in  number, 
were  based  upon  payments  of  money  by  Ruef  to  Gal- 
lagher, and  by  Gallagher  to  different  members  of  the 
board.  On  March  23,  the  Grand  Jury  returned  nine 
indictments  against  Louis  Glass,  vice-president  of  the 
Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company,  based 
upon  the  bribing,  through  Halsey,  of  Supervisors  to 
prevent  the  granting  of  a  competing  telephone  franchise. 
During  the  two  months  that  followed,  the  Grand 
Jury  continued  at  the  steady  grind  of  graft  investigation. 
Finally,  on  May  24,  one  additional  indictment  ^°^  was 
brought  against  Halsey  and  two  against  Glass.     On  that 

205  Although  the  Graft  Prosecution  was  to  be  effectively  opposed 
by  Union  Labor  party  leaders,  the  San  Francisco  Labor  Council, 
made  up  of  representatives  of  practically  every  San  Francisco 
labor  union,  on  the  night  of  March  23,  1907,  adopted  resolutions 
declaring  for  the  prosecution  of  bribe-givers  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  The  indictments  issued  during  the  past  few  days  by 
the  San  Francisco  Grand  Jury  against  certain  individuals  involve 
specific  charges  of  flagrant  and  widespread  corruption  on  the  part 
of  many  members  of  the  present  city  government;  and  whereas,  said 
government,  having  adopted  the  name  of  'Union  Labor'  has  pro- 
fessed particular  concern  for  the  welfare  of  the  working  class,  as 
represented  by  organized  labor,  and  has  sought  and  secured  elec- 
tion upon  pledges  of  loyalty  to  the  principles,  economic  and  political, 
to  which  organized  labor  everywhere  is  committed;  and  whereas, 
the  alleged  conduct  of  the  city  government  is  not  only  grossly 
repugnant  to  the  principles  of  organized  labor,  but  violates  every 
rule  of  common  honesty;  and  whereas,  the  conduct  of  the  'Union 
Labor'  government  and  the  inevitable  association  thereof  with  the 
character  of  the  labor  movement  is  calculated  to  lead  to  public 
misconception  of  the  latter  and  thus  to  injure  it  and  lessen  its 
efficiency  in  its  chosen  field,  therefore  be  it 

"Resolved,  By  the  San  Francisco  Labor  Council,  that  we  declare 
that  every  corruptionist,  briber  and  bribed,  shoul.d  be  prosecuted 
and  punished  according  to  law,  and  hereby  pledge  our  co-operation 
to  that  end;  further 

"Resolved,  That  we  reassert  the  position  of  the  San  Francisco 
Labor  Council  as  a  body  organized  and  conducted  for  purely 
economic  purposes,  having  no  connection,  direct  or  implied,  with 
the  I'nion  Labor  party  or  any  other  political  party  or  organization, 
and  therefore  being  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  conduct  or  mis- 
conduct of  any  such  party  or  organization;  further 

"Resolved.  That  we  also  reaffirm  our  belief  that  the  private 
ownership  of  public  utilities  constitutes  the  chief  source  of  public 
corruption,  and  is  in  fact  a  premium  thereon,  and  therefore  ought 
to  be  displaced  by  the  system  of  public  ownership  of  public  utili- 
ties." 


The  Source  of  the  Bribe  Money        185 

date,  fourteen  indictments  were  returned  against  Patrick 
Calhoun,  Thorn  well  Mullally,  Tirey  L.  Ford,  William 
M.  Abbott,'"*'  Abraham  Ruef  and  Mayor  E.  E.  Schmitz, 
indicted  jointly,  for  the  bribery  in  connection  with  the 
granting-  of  the  over-head  trolley  permit. 

The  day  following,  May  25,  G.  H.  Umbsen,  J.  E. 
Green,  W.  I.  Brobeck  and  Abraham  Ruef  were  jointly 
indicted  fourteen  times  on  charges  of  offering  a  bribe  to 
fourteen  Supervisors  in  the  Parkside  franchise  matter. 
The  same  day,  fourteen  indictments  were  returned 
against  Frank  G.  Drum,  Abraham  Ruef,  Eugene  E. 
Schmitz,  Eugene  de  Sabla  and  John  Martin  on  charges 
of  giving  and  offering  bribes  to  fourteen  Supervisors  in 
the  matter  of  fixing  the  gas  rates. 

Still  another  series  of  graft  indictments  were  to  be 
found.  Three  prize-fight  promoters,  W.  Britt,  "Eddie" 
Graney  and  "Jimmie"  Coffroth  were,  on  nine  counts, 
indicted  jointly  with  Schmitz  and  Ruef  for  bribery  in 
connection  with  the  awarding  to  them  of  virtually  a 
monopoly  of  the  promotion  of  prize  fighting  in  San 
Francisco. 


20«  At  the  time  Patrick  Calhoun  held  the  office  of  President  of 
the  United  Railroads;  Mullally  was  assistant  to  the  President; 
Ford  general  counsel  for  the  corporation.  Abbott  was'  Ford's 
assistant. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

RuEF  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion. ^°^ 

While  the  Supervisors  were  making  full  confessions 
of  their  participation  in  the  bribery  transactions,  and  the 
Grand  Jury  was  dragging  from  unwilling  promoters, 
capitalists  and  corporation  employees  information  as  to 
the  source  of  the  corruption  funds,  Ruef's  days  and 
nights  were  devoted  to  consideration  of  plans  for  his 
own  safety.  Ruef,  after  his  arrest  and  confinement  un- 
der Elisor  Biggy,  became  one  of  the  scramblers  of  his 
broken  organization  to  save  himself. 

But  Ruef  was  more  clever,  more  far-seeing  than  any 
of  the  Supervisors.  His  course  from  the  beginning  in- 
dicates that,  in  considering  confession,  he  carefully 
weighed  against  the  power  of  the  regularly  constituted 
authorities  of  San  Francisco  to  protect  him  if  he  testified 
for  the  State,  the  ability  of  organized  corruptionists  to 
punish  for  betrayal.  Ruef  realized  that  although  the 
all-powerful  State  "machine,"  labeled  Republican,  of 
which  the  San  Francisco  organization  labeled  Union 
Labor,  which  he  had  built  up,  was  but  a  part,  had  for 
the  moment  lost  control  of  the  San  Francisco  District 
Attorney's  office,  but  the  "machine"  still  dominated  the 
other  departments  of  the  municipal  government,  as  well 

207  The  statements  contained  in  this  chapter  are  based  on  affida- 
vits filed  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun  et  al.,  No. 
823.  Many  of  the  statements  are  qualified,  and  in  many  instances 
denied,  in  affidavits  filed  by  Ruef,  his  friends,  associates  and  attor- 
neys, in  the  same  proceedings. 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        187 

as  of  the  State  government.-''®  Ruef  realized  that  Lang- 
don  might  die ;  that  the  State  Attorney  General  might 
set  Langdon  aside  and  himself  conduct  the  graft  prose- 
cution. And  he  reaHzed  that  some  day  a  district  attorr 
ney  other  than  Langdon  would  be  prosecutor  in  San 
Francisco.  In  any  of  these  events,  what  would  be  the 
lot  of  the  man  who  had  betrayed  the  scarcely-known 
captains  of  the  powerful  machine? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  hour  when  the  evidence  which 
the  District  Attorney  had  accumulated  against  him 
would  be  presented  before  a  trial  jury,  approached  with 
deadly  certainty. 

Such  considerations  led  to  Ruef  devoting  his  days  to 
resistance  of  the  proceeding  against  him  in  the  trial 
court,  where  a  jury  to  try  him  on  one  of  the  five  extor- 
tion charges  on  which  he  had  been  indicted,  was  being 
impaneled,  while  his  nights  were  given  to  scheming  to 
wring  from  the  District  Attorney  immunity  from  punish- 
ment for  the  extortions  and  briberies  which  had  been 
brought  to  his  door. 

The  period  was  one  of  activity  for  both  District  At- 
torney and  Ruef.  On  the  whole,  however,  the  District 
Attorney  had  the  liveliest  time  of  it. 

To  be  sure,  Ruef  had  been  brought  before  the  trial 
judge;  that  is  to  say,  the  impaneling  of  a  trial  jury  had 

208  In  this  connection,  in  discussing:  the  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  bringing-  criminals  to  trial,  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  in  its 
issue  of  March  14,  1907,  said: 

"The  penal  laws  of  California  are  admirable,  and  cover  almost 
every  transaction  deserving  moral  reprobation.  The  only  reason 
why  all  our  people  are  not  either  virtuous  or  in  jail  is  that  the 
same  Tvegislatures  which  have  so  carefully  defined  crimes  and  pre- 
scribed punishments  have  been  still  more  careful  to  enact  codes 
of  criminal  procedure  that  nobody  can  be  convicted  of  any  crime 
if  he  has  the  cash  to  pay  for  getting  off.  And  what  the  legislatures 
have  failed  to  do  in  this  direction  the  courts  have  usually  made 
good." 


1 88        Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

begun,  but  Ruef's  technical  fight  had  not  been  aban- 
doned for  a  moment. 

The  appearance  of  Ruef  under  arrest  was  signal  for 
a  fight  to  have  him  admitted  to  bail.  But  release  under 
bonds  Judge  Dunne  denied  him  on  the  ground  of  the 
immediate  approach  of  his  trial,  and  because  he  had  at- 
tempted to  put  himself  beyond  the  process  of  the  court. 
Ruef's  attorneys  appealed  to  the  United  States  District 
Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  but  this  was  denied 
them.  His  attorneys  filed  affidavits  alleging  bias  and 
prejudice  on  the  part  of  Judge  Dunne  against  Ruef, 
and  demanding  a  change  of  venue.  And  with  these 
various  motions,  all  of  which  the  District  Attorney  was 
called  upon  to  meet,  was  the  appeal  from  Judge  Heb- 
bard's  order  to  the  Federal  Supreme  Court,  which  was 
considered  in  a  previous  chapter. 

The  actual  work  of  drawing  a  jury  to  try  Ruef  began 
on  March  13,-°^  eight  days  later  than  the  date  originally 
set  for  trial.  The  State  was  represented  by  District  At- 
torney Langdon,  Francis  J.  Heney  and  Hiram  W.  John- 
son. At  the  defense  end  of  the  table  with  Schmitz  and 
Ruef  were  Attorneys  Joseph  C.  Campbell,  Samuel  M. 
Shortridge,  Henry  Ach,  Charles  A.  Fairall  and  J.  J. 
Barrett.  But  it  developed  that  one  of  the  four  citizens 
drawn  for  jury  service  was  not  in  the  courtroom.  The 
defense  objected  to  proceeding  during  the  absence  of  the 
venireman.  The  hearing  was  accordingly  postponed. 
Because  of  one  technical  obstruction  and  another,  the 
work   of   impaneling   the    trial    jury   was    delayed    until 

209  Four  years  later  to  a  day,  March  13,  1911,  Ruef  was  taken 
to  the  penitentiary  at  San  Quentin  to  begin  service  of  his  fourteen- 
year  term  for  bribing  a  Supervisor. 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        189 

April  2.  Even  after  that  date  there  were  interruptions, 
but  the  work  of  securing  the  jury  ^^°  went  on  until  May 
13,  when  the  twelfth  man  to  try  Ruef  was  accepted. 

But  while  Ruef  was  making  this  brave  fight  in  public 
to  head  off  trial  on  the  extortion  charge,  behind  the 
scenes  he  was  imploring  representatives  of  the  Prosecu- 
tion to  grant  him  immunity  from  punishment  in  return 
for  such  confession  as  he  might  see  fit  to  make. 

As  early  as  March  20,  Ruef  sent  word  to  Heney 
through  Burns  -"  that  he  was  willing  to  make  confes- 
sion,  provided    he   were   given    immunity    from   punish- 

210  As  the  impaneling  of  the  Ruef  jury  proceeded,  that  Ruef's 
nerve  was  breaking  became  apparent  to  all  who  saw  him.  The 
Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  March  18,  1907,  thus  describes  his  condi- 
tion: 

"Ruef's  ner\''e  is  breaking  down.  He  is  a  prey  to  doubts  and 
fears  which  never  troubled  him  in  those  days  when  he  coiild  see 
his  political  henchmen  every  day  and  bolster  up  their  confidence 
in  his  ability  to  fight  off  the  prosecution.  Reports  reach  his  ears 
of  confessions  of  guilt  on  the  part  of  some  of  his  official  puppets, 
of  the  sinister  activities  of  Burns  and  his  agents  and  treachery  on 
the  part  of  those  whom  he  considered  his  most  devoted  adherents, 
and  fill  him  with  alarm. 

"It  was  different  when  he  could  hold  his  Sunday  evening  caucus 
with  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  and  reassure  them 
that  all  would  be  well.  He  knows  the  men  he  used  in  his  political 
schemes  and  their  weaknesses." 

211  Heney,  in  instructing  Burns  as  to  his  policy  regarding  Ruef, 
took  occasion  to  state  to  the  detective  his  attitude  toward  the 
broken  boss.  In  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs. 
Calhoun  et  al..  No.  823,  Heney  sets  forth  that  he  told  Burns: 
"Ruef  was  not  a  mere  accessory  or  tool  in  the  commission  of  these 
briberies.  He  is  a  man  of  extraordinary  brain  power,  keen  intelli- 
gence, fine  education,  with  the  choice  of  good  environment,  great 
power  of  persuasion  over  men,  dominating  personality,  great  shrewd- 
ness and  cunning,  coupled  with  a  greedy  and  avaricious  disposition. 
He  has  not  been  led  into  the  commission  of  these  crimes  through 
weakness,  but  on  the  contrary  has  aided  in  ttie  initiation  of  them 
and  has  joined  hands  with  the  most  vicious  and  depraved  elements 
in  the  city  to  secure  unlawful  protection  for  them  in  conducting 
their  resorts  of  vice,  and  has  joined  hands  with  the  special  privi- 
lege seeking  classes  to  place  improper  burdens  upon  the  people  of 
this  city  by  granting  franchises  to  public  service  corporations 
which  ought  never  to  have  been  granted,  and  by  fixing  rate.s  which 
may  be  charged  by  them  in  excess  of  the  amounts  which  such 
rates  ought  to  be,  and  thus  indirectly  robbing  the  poor  people  of 
this  city  of  a  large  part  of  their  meagre  earnings,  and  that  to  let 
Ruef  go  free  of  all  punishment  under  such  circumstances  would  be 
a  crime  against  society." 


190       Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

ment  for  all  crimes  which  he  had  committed  or  in 
which   he   had   participated. 

Heney  refused  absolutely  to  consider  any  arrange- 
ment which  involved  complete  immunity  for  Ruef. 
Negotiations  on  the  basis  of  partial  immunity  fol- 
lowed.-^^ 

Heney,  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not  trust  any  of 
Ruef's  lawyers,  refused  to  discuss  the  matter  with 
them,  but  stated  that  he  would  meet  any  lawyer  in 
whom  he  had  confidence  to  negotiate  terms  of  partial 
immunity,  provided  that  Ruef's  representative  were 
permitted : 

( 1 )  To  give  the  names  of  Ruef's  accomplices  who 
would  be  involved  by  his  testimony. 

(2)  To  give  the  general  nature  of  the  offenses  in 
which  the  various  accomplices   were  involved. 

(3)  To  be  prepared  to  assure  Heney  that  Ruef's 
evidence  against  his  accomplices  could  be  corrobo- 
rated, and  was  sufficient  to  sustain  a  conviction. 

Ruef  at  first  appeared  to  be  well  satisfied  with  the 
plan.  He  sent  for  a  list  of  San  Francisco  attorneys, 
and  set  himself  enthusiastically  to  the  work  of  select- 
ing a  list  of  the  names  of  attorneys  to  be  submitted 
to  Heney.  But  he  failed  to  make  a  selection,  urging 
all  the  time  to  Burns  that  Heney  accept  Henry  Ach. 
Ruef's  insistence  that  he  deal  with  Ach  convinced 
Heney  that  Ruef  was  not  acting  in  good  faith,  and  he 

212  Running  throug-h  the  affidavits  which  resulted  from  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  forces  of  the  prosecution  and  the  defense  con- 
cerning- these  negotiations,  is  a  thread  of  suggestion  that  individual 
members  of  the  prosecution  differed  as  to  the  policy  that  should  be 
followed  toward  Ruef.  Burns,  the  detective,  leaned  toward  granting 
him  complete  immunity.  Heney  was  unalterably  opposed  to  this 
course.     Langdon,  on  the  whole,  sided  with  Heney. 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        191 

refused  to  yield  to  Burns's  urging  that  he  give  way 
to  Ruef  in  this  particular  and  accept  Ach  as  Ruef's 
representative.^" 

Under  Ruef's  temporizing,  negotiations  dragged 
until  April  2,  the  day  that,  Ruef's  technical  obstruc- 
tions in  the  main  set  aside,  his  trial  was  to  be  resumed 
before   Judge    Dunne. 

On  that  day,  a  new  actor  appeared  in  the  person 
of  Dr.  Jacob  Nieto,  a  Jewish  Rabbi  of  some  promi- 
nence in  San  Francisco. 

Nieto,  according  to  Burns's  statement  to  Heney, 
asked  the  detective  if  he  had  any  objection  to  his 
(Nieto's)  calling  upon  Ruef.  Nieto  stated  further 
that  he  believed  that  he  could  get  Ruef  to  confess,  and 
volunteered  the  theory  that  the  "higher-ups"  were  en- 
deavoring to  make  Ruef  a  scapegoat  for  all  the 
boodling   that   had   been   committed. 

Burns  reported  to  Heney  that  he  not  only  replied 
to  Nieto  that  he  had  no  objection  to  Nieto's  visiting 
Ruef,  but  would  be  glad  to  have  the  Rabbi  endeavor 
to  get  Ruef  to   tell   the  truth. 

When  Burns  told  Heney  of  this  conversation, 
Heney  did  not  show  himself  so  well  pleased  with  the 
arrangements  as  Burns  might  have  expected.  The 
prosecutor  took  occasion  to  warn  Burns  against  Nieto. 
Heney  had  already  had  unpleasant  experience  with 
Rabbi     Nieto.-^*       Nevertheless,     Nieto    visited     Ruef. 

213  See  Henev's  affidavit  in  the  matter  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick 
Calhoun  et  al.,  No.  823. 

214  Nieto.  according-  to  Heney,  had  endeavored  to  make  it  appear 
that  race  prejudice  entered  into  the  prosecution  of  Ruef.  Heney, 
in  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs.  Calhoun  et  al..  No. 
823,  tells  of  Nieto's  interference  even  when  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury 
■was    being    impaneled.     Heney   says:      "During   the    latter   part   of 


192        Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

Members  of  Ruef's  family  were  called  into  consulta- 
tion. Conferences  were  held  between  Ach,  Ruef  and 
Burns.  Heney  states  in  his  affidavit  that  he  did  not 
attend  these  meetings.  Finally  Bums  brought  Heney 
word  that  Ach  and  Ruef  wanted  citations  to  show 
that  the  District  Attorney  had  authority  to  grant  im- 
munity. Heney  sent  back  word  that  he  was  confident 
that  the  District  Attorney  had  no  such  power,  but  with 

October  or  the  first  week  in  November,  1906,  while  said  Grand  Jury 
was  being  impaneled,  Dr.  Jacob  Nieto  introduced  himself  to  me  In 
the  court  room  of  Department  No.  10,  where  I  had  noticed  that 
he  was  a  constant  attendant  and  close  observer  of  the  proceedings 
connected  with  the  impaneling  of  the  Grand  Jury. 

"Some  days  after  he  had  introduced  himself  to  me  he  stepped 
up  to  me,  just  as  court  had  adjourned  and  after  I  had  been  exam- 
ining some  of  the  grand  jurors  as  to  their  qualifications,  and  said 
in   substance: 

"  'Mr.  Heney,  it  seems  to  me  that  you  discriminate  somewhat 
against  the  Jews  in  examining  jurors,  and  I  think  that  in  your 
position  you  ought  to  be  more  careful  not  to  exhibit  any  prejudice 
against  a  man  on  account  of  his  religion.' 

"I  asked  what  in  particular  I  had  done  to  cause  him  to  criticise 
my  conduct  in  that  way,  and  he  referred  to  some  question  which 
I  had  asked  a  grand  juror,  but  which  I  cannot  now  recollect.  I 
then  said  to  him  in  substance: 

"  'Why,  Doctor,  you  are  supersensitive.  Some  of  the  best  friends 
I  have  in  the  world  are  Jews,  and  some  of  the  best  clients  I  ever 
had  in  my  life  were  Jews,  and  I  have  no  prejudice  against  any 
man  merely  on  account  of  liis  religious  belief.  I  am  sorry  that  you 
have  so  misapprehended  the  purpose  and  motives  of  my  questions 
to   jurors.' 

"On  a  subsequent  day,  during  the  time  the  Grand  Jury  was 
being  impaneled.  Dr.  Nieto  again  approached  me  after  an  adjourn- 
ment of  the  court  and  again  reproached  me  for  having  again  shown 
prejudice  or  discrimination  against  some  grand  juror  of  the  Jewish 
faith  by  the  questions  which  I  asked  him  ♦  *  *  and  I  said  to  him 
in  substance,  in  a  very  emphatic  tone  of  voice:  'Dr.  Nieto,  I  have 
heretofore  told  you  that  I  have  no  prejudice  against  any  man  what- 
ever on  account  of  his  religion.  All  I  am  trying  to  do  in  this  mat- 
ter is  to  get  fair  grand  jurors,  and  I  am  just  as  willing  to  trust 
honest  Jews  as  honest  Christians,  but  I  want  to  make  sure  that  a 
man  is  honest,  whether  a  Jew  or  Christian,  and  it  looks  to  me  as 
if  you  are  trying  to  find  some  excuse  to  line  up  in  opposition  to  this 
prosecution.  I  do  not  see  why  you  need  to  seek  for  excuses  if  that 
is  what  you  want  to  do.  I  am  conscious  of  my  own  singleness  of 
purpose  and  purity  of  purpose  in  examining  grand  jurors,  and  it  is 
wholly  immaterial  to  me,  therefore,  what  you  or  anybody  else  may 
think  of  my  method  of  questioning  them.'  " 

As  a  matter  of  fact  Jews  not  only  sat  on  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury, 
but  were  among  the  most  earnest  and  effective  in  sifting  the  graft 
scandal  to  the  bottom.  But  that  the  false  cry  that  Ruef  was  perse- 
cuted because  he  was  a  Jew  influenced  many  of  his  fellow  Jews  in 
his  favor  is  unquestionably  true. 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        193 

the  further  statement  that  if  the  terms  of  the  im- 
munity agreement  were  reasonable  and  in  the  interest 
of  justice,  that  the  Court,  provided  it  had  confidence 
in  the  District  Attorney,  would  unquestionably  follow 
such  recommendation  as  that  ofificial  might  make. 

Burns  brought  back  word  to  Heney  that  Ruef  and 
Ach  continued  to  insist  upon  complete  immunity. 

Heney  sent  back  an  ultimatum  to  the  efifect  that 
Ruef  must  plead  guilty  to  the  extortion  case  then 
on  trial  before  Judge  Dunne  -^^  and  take  his  chances 
with  the  sentence  that  would  be  given  him ;  that  if 
Ruef  did  this,  Heney  was  willing  to  arrange  for  com- 
plete immunity  in  all  the  other  cases,  provided  Ruef 
showed  to  Heney's  satisfaction  that  his  testimony  could 
be  sufficiently  corroborated  and  would  sustain  a  con- 
viction of  his  accomplices  other  than  Supervisors,  in 
cases  where  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  had 
been  bribed. 

In  the  meantime,  the  work  of  selecting  a  jury  to 
try  Ruef  on  the  extortion  charge  was  going  on  with 
the  deadly  certainty  of  the  slide  of  the  knife  of  a 
gfuillotine.  The  second  week  of  the  examination  of 
prospective  jurors  brought  Dr.  Nieto  to  Heney's  office. 
Burns  accompanied  the  Rabbi. 

Nieto  ^^®   described   himself   as   no   particular    friend 

215  This  case  was  numbered  from  the  indictment,  305.  Schmitz 
was  indicted  jointly  with  Ruef  in  this  indictment,  and  later  was 
convicted  under  it  and  sentenced  to  five  years  in  the  penitentiary. 
See  Chapter  XVI.  The  testimony  at  the  Schmitz  trial  showed  that 
Ruef  had  taken  the  extortion  money  from  the  French-Restaurant 
keepers,  after  Schmitz  had  acted  with  him  to  imperil  the  French- 
Restaurant  keepers'  liquor  licenses,  and  had  given  part  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  enterprise  to  Schmitz. 

216  In  his  affidavit,  Heney  quotes  Rabbi  Nieto  as  saying  In 
substance:  "I  do  not  care  to  get  publicly  mixed  up  In  the  Ruef 
case,  because  among  other  things,  I  am  not  a  particular  friend  of 
Ruef's,  and  am  not  interested  in  the  matter  as  an  individual  but 


194       ^uti  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

of  Ruef.  He  expressed  the  opinion  that  Ruef  should 
be  punished;  that  he  should  restore  his  ill-gotten  gains. 
Heney  stated  to  Nieto  his  attitude  toward  Ruef,  as  he 
had  expressed  it  many  times  before.  From  that  time 
on  Dr.  Nieto  was  a  frequent  caller  at  Heney's  office, 
always  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  question  of 
Ruef's  confession.  During  all  these  meetings  Heney 
did  not  depart  a  jot  from  his  original  position  that 
the  extortion  charge  against  Ruef  should  not  be  dis- 
missed. 

Later  on,  a  second  Rabbi,  Dr.  Bernard  M.  Kaplan, 
joined  Nieto  in  these  visits  to  Heney's  office.  Kaplan 
continued  active  in  the  negotiations  to  secure  immunity 
for  the  fallen  boss.^^^  Finally  Nieto,  Kaplan  and  Ach 
sent  word  to  Heney  and  Langdon  by  Burns  that  they 
desired  to  meet  the  District  Attorney  and  his  assistant 


only  in  the  welfare  of  this  community.  I  think  that  Ruef  has 
grievously  sinned  against  this  community  and  that  he  can  do  a 
great  deal  to  undo  the  wrongs  which  he  has  committed  and  to  clear 
up  the  situation,  and  I  have  told  him  that  it  is  his  duty  to  himself 
and  to  his  family  and  to  the  city  of  his  birth  to  do  so.  I  want  you 
to  understand,  Mr.  Heney,  that  I  have  not  come  here  to  ask  you  to 
let  Ruef  go  free  and  without  punishment.  I  think  he  ought  to  be 
punished,  and  I  think  he  ought  to  give  a  large  part  of  the  money 
which  he  obtained  from  these  corporations  to  the  city  to  improve 
its  streets.  He  ought  to  give  $300,000  for  that  purpose,  but  Ruef 
thinks  more  of  money  than  he  does  of  his  family,  or  even  of  his 
liberty,  and  I  think  he  would  rather  go  to  the  penitentiary  than 
give  up  any  very  large  amount  of  it." 

217  Heney,  in  his  affidavit,  makes  the  following  statement  of  his 
Impression  of  Kaplan:  "Dr.  Kaplan  appeared  to  be  far  more  inter- 
ested in  finding  out  just  what  would  be  done  to  Ruef,  provided  he 
plead  guilty  in  the  Frencli  Restaurant  case  than  he  was  in  the 
moral  issue  which  was  involved  in  the  discussion,  or  in  the  beneficial 
effect  which  the  testimony  of  Ruef  might  have  upon  the  deplorable 
situation  then  existing  in  San  Francisco  on  account  of  Its  municipal 
corruption. 

"This  was  evidenced  more  from  his  manner  and  form  of  ques- 
tioning than  by  anything  which  he  said.  I  immediately  became 
convinced  that  lie  was  influenced  by  no  motive  or  purpose  other 
than  that  of  getting  Ruef  off  without  any  punishment  if  possible; 
but  I  also  formed  the  opinion  that  he  was  honest  and  unsophisti- 
cated." 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        195 

at  Heney's  office  to  discuss  the  immunity  question. 
Heney  and  Langdon  consented  and  the  meeting  was 
held  in  the  latter  part  of  April. 

Ach  insisted  upon  complete  immunity,  but  admitted 
that  he  had  advised  Ruef  to  take  the  best  he  could 
get.^^^  Neither  Langdon  -^^  nor  Heney  would  consent 
to  complete  immunity,  nor  to  material  change  in  the 
stand  which  Heney  had  taken.  Ach  wanted  assurance 
that  the  Judges  before  whom  the  bribery  cases  were 
pending  w^ould,  on  motion  of  the  District  Attorney, 
dismiss  them  as  to  Ruef,  and  suggested  to  Heney  that 
he  go  to  the  judges  and  get  them  to  consent  to  the 
proposed  agreement.  To  this  Heney  made  emphatic 
refusal,  stating  that  the  utmost  he  would  do  would  be 
to  go  with  Ach  to  Judges  Dunne  and  Lawlor  and  ask 
each  of  them  whether  he  had  confidence  in  him 
(Heney)  and  what  the  Judge's  general  practice  was  in 
relation  to  matters  of  this  kind,  generally,  when  they 
came  before  his  court. 

Other  conferences  ^^°  were  held,  at  which  Ach  con- 
tinued   to    urge    complete    immunity    for    Ruef,    which 

21s  'Fleney.  in  his  affif^avit,  states:  "During  the  conversation  Ach 
statPd.  in  suhptance:  'You  can't  convict  Ruef  in  this  French  Res- 
taurant case,  but  I  realize  that  you  are  sure  to  convict  him  in  some 
of  the  bribery  cases,  and  I  think  it  is  useless  for  him  to  stand  out 
and  fierht  any  long-er,  he  had  better  take  the  best  he  can  get,  and 
I  have  told  him  so.  Ke  in.cists.  however,  that  he  ought  not  to  be 
required  to  plead  guilty  in  the  French  Restaurant  case,  or  to  submit 
to  any  punishment.'  " 

219  In  the  course  of  the  intei-view,  T.,angdon  stated  to  Ach  and 
the  two  Rabbis  that  he  had  authorized  Heney  to  conduct  the  nego- 
tiations for  him.  but  that  he  wanted  it  to  be  distinctly  understood 
by  everybody  that  he  had  the  final  say  in  the  matter  and  would 
exercise  it.  and  that  no  agreement  could  be  concluded  without  his 
personal  sanction. 

220  Heney.  in  his  affidavit  describing  these  meetings,  states  that 
Ach.  Kaplan  and  Nieto  habitually  came  in  the  back  way  so  they 
would  not  be  seen  bv  newspaper  reporters  who  at  the  time  fre- 
quented  the  front  halls  of  the  private  residence  in  which  Heney, 


196       Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

finally  brought  out  emphatic  statement  from  Heney 
that  he  did  not  trust  Ruef  and  would  enter  into  no 
agreement  with  him  which  did  not  leave  it  in  the 
power  of  the  District  Attorney  to  send  him  to  the 
penitentiary  if  at  any  time  the  District  Attorney  and 
himself  concluded  that  during  the  progress  of  the  mat- 
ters Ruef  was  acting  in  bad  faith,  or  that  the  informa- 
tion which  he  might  give  was  not  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  the  people  of  the  city  and  the  State  equitably 
to  entitle  him  to  go  without  punishment. 

Heney  takes  pains  all  through  his  affidavit  to  make 
it  clear  that  he  treated  with  Nieto  and  Kaplan  at  all 
times  upon  the  theory  that  they  were  Ruef's  special 
pleaders  and  special  representatives,  who  believed  that 
Ruef  was  sure  to  be  convicted  upon  as  many  of  the 
felony  bribery  charges  as  the  District  Attorney  tried 
him  on,  and  that  he  would  go  to  the  penitentiary  for  a 
term    of   years    equivalent   to   life. 

On  the  night  of  April  21,^^^  when  the  work  of  se- 

after  the  fire,  had  his  offices.  Ach,  Heney  states,  was  desirous  of 
not  being  known  as  party  to  the  negotiations.  Heney  in  his  affi- 
davit says:  "In  this  same  conversation  (at  the  first  conference)  Ach 
said  in  substance:  'I  want  everybody  here  to  agree  that  the  fact 
that  I  participated  in  this  conference,  or  had  anything  to  do  with 
advising  Ruef  to  turn  state's  evidence,  shall  never  be  made  known; 
it  would  absolutely  ruin  my  business  if  it  became  known.  A  lot  of 
the  people  whom  Ruef  will  involve  as  accomplices  are  close  friends 
of  clients  of  mine.  Of  course  I  do  not  know  just  whom  he  will 
involve,  but  I  do  have  a  general  idea.  For  instance,  while  he  has 
never  told  me  so  in  so  many  words,  I  understand  that  he  will  involve 
William  F.  Herrin.  Now  just  to  illustrate  to  you  how  it  would 
affect  me  in  business  if  it  was  known  that  I  participated  in  urging 
Ruef  to  do  this  I  will  tell  you  that  I  am  attorney  for  one  company, 
an  oil  company,  that  pays  me  ten  thousand  dollars  a  year  as  a 
salary  for  attending  to  its  business,  and  Herrin  is  one  of  the  direc- 
tors of  the  company  and  undoubtedly  has  sufficient  influence  with 
the  other  directors  to  take  this  client  away  from  me.  This  is  only 
one  instance,  and  there  are  many  others.'  " 

221  See  affidavits  of  Francis  J.  Heney  and  Judge  William  P. 
Lawlor  on  file  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun  et  al., 
No.  823. 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        197 

lecting  a  jury  to  try  Ruef  was  nearing  completion, 
Ach,  Kaplan  and  Nieto  visited  Heney's  office  with 
assurance  that  Ruef  had  about  conckided  to  accept 
Heney's  terms.  But,  they  explained,  a  new  difficulty 
had  come  up.  Rabbi  Nieto  was  to  leave  San  Fran- 
cisco the  next  morning  for  a  trip  to  Europe.  Neither 
he  nor  Dr.  Kaplan  was  familiar  with  the  practices 
of  the  courts,  and  while  the  judges  would  no  doubt 
consider  favorably  any  recommendation  which  was 
made  by  Mr.  Langdon  or  by  Mr.  Heney,  nevertheless, 
the  two  Rabbis  would  like  to  hear  from  Judge  Dunne 
and  Judge  Lawlor  statement  as  to  what  the  practice 
of  each  of  these  judges  was  in  that  respect  before 
they  urged  Ruef  any  further  to  accept  the  terms  which 
had  been  offered  him.  As  Dr.  Nieto  was  to  leave  for 
Europe  early  in  the  morning,  they  wanted  to  see  the 
judges  that  night. 

Heney  assured  his  visitors  that  owing  to  the  late- 
ness of  the  hour,  he  was  afraid  it  would  be  impossible 
for  them  to  see  the  judges  before  morning.  But  they 
insisted.  Burns  was  finally  sent  out  to  find  the  judges 
if  he  could.  He  succeeded  in  locating  Judge  Lawlor 
at  the  theater.  Judge  Lawlor  at  first  refused  to  see 
Nieto  and  Heney  that  night,  stating  that  they  could 
appear  at  his  chambers  the  next  morning.  But  Burns 
explained  that  Nieto  had  to  leave  for  Europe  the  next 
morning,  adding  that  he  was  sure  that  both  Nieto  and 
Heney  would  consider  it  a  great  favor  if  the  Judge 
would  see  them  that  night,  as  the  matter  was  very 
important.  Lawlor  finally  consented  to  see  them,  but 
stated  that  he  would  do  so  only  at  his  chambers,  if,  as 
he  understood  it,  Heney  and  Nieto  wanted  to  see  him 


198        Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

about  his  duties  as  judge.  Burns  took  word  back  to 
Heney's  ofifice  that  they  could  go  to  Judge  Lawlor's 
chambers,  where  the  Judge  would  go  as  soon  as  the 
theater  was  over. 

Heney,  Kaplan  and  Nieto  met  Lawlor  at  his  cham- 
bers. Heney  went  straight  at  the  purpose  of  the 
meeting. 

"Judge,"  Heney  sets  forth  in  his  affidavit  he  said 
in  substance,  "we  come  up  here  tonight  to  ask  you  what 
the  practice  of  your  court  is  in  criminal  cases  in  rela- 
tion to  recommendations  which  may  be  made  by  the 
District  Attorney?" 

Judge  Lawlor  replied  in  effect  that  the  District 
Attorney  represents  the  public  in  the  prosecution  of 
crime,  and  that  under  the  law  it  was  the  practice  for 
that  official  to  submit  to  the  court  recommendations 
concerning  persons  who  turn  state's  evidence ;  that  the 
law  vests  the  authority  in  the  Court  to  determine  all 
such  recommendations  and  that  it  is  proper  for  the 
District  Attorney  to  make  them ;  that  such  recommenda- 
tions should  be  carefully  considered  by  the  Court ;  and 
if  they  are  in  the  interests  of  justice  they  should  be 
followed,  otherwise  not.  Judge  Lawlor  stated  further 
that  he  would  not  consider  or  discuss  any  cause  or 
case  of  any  individual  except  upon  a  full  hearing  in 
open  court,  and  that  it  would  be  determined  alone  upon 
what  was  so  presented.  Final  decision,  he  said,  would 
in  every  case  rest  with  the  Court,  and  if  the  application 
was  in  the  interest  of  justice,  it  would  be  granted,  but 
if  not  it  would  be  denied. 

Immediately     after     having     made     this     statement 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        199 

Judge   Lawlor  excused   himself  and   left  the   building. 

Judge  Dunne,  when  finally  found  by  Burns,  objected 
as  strongly  as  had  Judge  Lawlor  to  going  to  the  court- 
room that  night,  but  finally  yielded  to  the  same  repre- 
sentations as  had  been  made  to  Judge  Lawlor. 

All  parties  at  the  meeting  with  Judge  Dunne  at  the 
courtroom  were  agreed  and  the  incident  was  quickly 
over. 

Heney  asked  the  Judge,  in  etTect,  to  state  for  the 
benefit  of  Nieto  and  Kaplan  the  practice  of  his  court 
in  criminal  matters  in  relation  to  any  recommendations 
which  may  be  made  by  the  District  Attorney's  office  in 
the  interest  of  justice  when  the  defendant  becomes  a 
witness  on  behalf  of  the  State  against  his  accomplices. 
Heney  stated  further  that  the  two  Rabbis  would  also 
like  to  know  whether  or  not  Judge  Dunne  had  confi- 
dence in  District  Attorney  Langdon  and  himself. 

Judge  Dunne  replied  in  substance :  "I  have  con- 
fidence in  you,  Mr.  Heney,  and  in  the  District  Attorney, 
and  while  I  have  confidence  in  the  District  Attorney, 
whenever  a  recommendation  or  suggestion  is  made  by 
him  in  a  case  pending  in  my  department,  it  is  my 
practice  to  entertain  and  be  guided  by  it,  provided,  of 
course,  it  is  in  the  interest  or  furtherance  of  justice." 

Kaplan  wanted  to  know  what  the  course  would  be 
should  a  man  plead  guilty  and  afterwards  ask  to 
change  his  plea. 

"You  have  heard  what  I  have  said,  gentlemen,  as 
to  my  practice,"  replied  Judge  Dunne.  "Of  course,  in 
all  cases  of  such  recommendations,  and  which  I  insist 
shall  always  be  made  in  open  court,  whenever  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  fails  to  convince  me  that  he  is  well  ad- 


200       Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

vised,  or  that  good  and  sufficient  grounds  exist  for 
his  motions,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  final  de- 
termination must  always  rest  with  me.  But,  of  course, 
I  would  give  great  weight  to  any  recommendation 
either  you,  Mr.  Heney,  or  Mr.  Langdon  might  make." 

From  the  courtroom  Nieto,  Kaplan  and  Burns  went 
to  Ruef,  but  Ruef  still  insisted  that  he  should  not 
plead  guilty  to  the  extortion  charge,  "backed  and 
filled,"  as  Burns  expressed  it. 

Ruef  sent  word  to  Heney  by  Burns,  asking  an  inter- 
view. But  this  Heney  refused  to  grant,  bluntly  stating 
that  should  he  meet  Ruef,  Ruef  would  misrepresent 
anything  that  he  might  say.  Heney  instructed  Burns 
to  tell  Ruef  that  he  could  accept  the  proposition  that 
he  had  made  to  him  or  let  it  alone  as  he  pleased,  that 
no  more  time  would  be  wasted  on  him ;  that  trial  of 
the  extortion  charge  would  be  pressed  to  conclusion 
and  regardless  of  whether  conviction  were  had  or  not, 
Ruef  would  be  tried  immediately  on  one  of  the  bribery 
charges. 

Nevertheless,  the  persistent  Ruef  got  an  interview 
with  Heney.     He  secured  it  in  this  way: 

After  Heney  had  retired  on  the  night  of  May  1st, 
Burns  called  him  up  on  the  telephone,  to  state  that  if 
Heney  would  give  Ruef  a  moment's-  interview  that 
Burns  was  confident  that  Ruef  would  accept  Heney's 
proposition.     Heney  granted  the  hearing. 

Ruef  plead  for  complete  immunity.  He  argued  that 
for  him  to  plead  guilty  to  the  extortion  charge  would 
weaken  his  testimony  in  the  bribery  cases.  He  urged 
that  public  opinion  would  approve  his  release.  He 
charged  Heney  with  being  prejudiced  against  him. 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        201 

Heney  listened  to  him  patiently,  but  refused  to  con- 
sider any  suggestion  that  he  alter  the  original  propo- 
sition. 

By  this  time  ten  jurors  had  been  secured  to  try 
Ruef.  Ruef  begged  for  an  interview  with  Langdon. 
It  was  granted,  with  Heney  and  others  present.  The 
same  ground  was  gone  over  again ;  the  same  denials 
made.  And  then  Heney  bluntly  told  Ruef  in  sub- 
stance: "You  must  plead  guilty  in  case  No.  305  and 
take  your  chances  on  the  sentence  which  v.ill  be  im- 
posed in  that  case.  This  is  our  ultimatum  and  you 
must  agree  to  this  before  the  first  witness  is  sworn  in 
case  No.  305,  or  we  will  withdraw  our  proposition  and 
will  never  again  renew  it,  or  any  other  proposition 
looking  to  any  sort  of  leniency  or  immunity  for  you.""- 

The  day  following.  Burns  brought  word  to  Heney 
that  Ruef  had  concluded  to  accept  the  Prosecution's 
proposition,  and  had  begim  his  confession  by  reciting 
the  particulars  of  the  United  Railroad's  bribery.  Burns 
recited  what  Ruef  had  told  him.  Burns's  enthusiasm 
suffered  a  shock  from  Heney's  cool  analysis  of  Ruef's 
statement.-"^ 

Heney  pointed  out  that  Ruef  had  made  no  revelation 
which    the    Prosecution    had    not    known    before,    and 


222  See  Heney's  affidavit  In  the  case  of  The  People  vs.  Patrick 
Calhoun  et  als..  No.  823. 

223  Ruef  in  this  confession  to  Burns  stated  that  he  had  received 
$200,000  from  General  Tirey  L.  Ford,  head  of  the  United  Railroads 
law  department.  Of  this  amount,  he  said  $50,000  he  had  given  to 
Schmitz  and  retained  $50,000  for  himself.  Ruef,  five  years  later,  in 
his  story  "The  Road  I  Traveled,"  published  in  the  San  Francisco 
Bulletin,  again  stated  that  he  had  received  $200,000  from  Ford,  of 
which  he  gave  to  Schmitz  $50,000,  to  Gallagher  his  share  for  the 
Supervisors,  and  retained  $50,000  for  himself.  Gallagher  received 
$85,000.  This  leaves  a  balance  of  $15,000  which  Mr.  Ruef  does  not 
account  for. 


202        Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

further  that  Ruef  was  certainly  concealing  part  at 
least  of  what  had  occurred  between  him  and  General 
Ford.  Heney  was  now  convinced  of  Ruef's  treachery.^^* 
Ruef's  future  course  tended  to  strengthen  this  convic- 
tion. 

Having  agreed  to  make  full  statement  of  his  con- 
nection Vv'ith  the  bribing  of  the  Supervisors,  Ruef  hag- 
gled over  the  form  of  immunity  contract.  He  endeav- 
ored to  force  upon  the  Prosecution  a  contract  of  his 
own  drawing.  Failing  in  that  he  tried  to  persuade 
Heney  and  Langdon  to  enter  into  a  stipulation  that  he 
might  withdraw  his  plea  of  guilty  in  the  extortion  case. 

In  neither  move  was  he  successful.  Heney  refused 
to  depart  a  jot  from  his  original  proposition.  Ruef 
finally  accepted  the  immunity  contract  which  Heney  had 
submitted.^^'' 

Even  after  the  immunity  contract  had  been  signed, 
Ruef  continued  to  urge  Burns  that  he  be  not  required 
to  plead  guilty.  The  prosecution  was  not  sure  what 
Ruef  would  do.  The  examination  of  jurors  to  try  him 
went  on.     The  jury  was  completed  on  May   13,^^®  and 

224  It  is  significant  to  note  in  this  connection  ttiat  Heney  did 
not  call  Ruef  as  a  witness  before  the  Grand  Jury  in  the  United 
Railroads  cases  until  after  the  Grand  Jury  had  found  Indictments 
against  the  officials  of  that  corporation.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
Grand  Jurors,  the  testimony,  exclusive  of  that  of  Ruef,  Justified 
these  indictments. 

225  The  immunity  contract  signed  by  Ruef  and  the  District  Attor- 
ney will  be  found  in  full  in  the  appendix. 

226  At  the  completion  of  the  Ruef  Jury,  the  Chronicle,  issue  of 
May  15,  1907,  said: 

"The  Ruef  jury  is  complete  and  we  are  now  in  a  way  to  learn 
all  the  truth  about  the  particular  crime  for  which  Ruef  is  this  time 
on  trial,  but  which,  compared  with  most  other  crimes  for  which  he 
has  been  indicted,  is  a  mere  peccadillo.  That  Ruef  got  the  money 
is  proved,  for  he  has  confessed.  His  defense,  of  course,  will  be 
that  the  French-Restaurant  proprietors  voluntarily  presented  him 
with  it.  The  state  will  have  to  prove,  in  order  to  secure  a  convic- 
tion,  that  they  did  not  give  the  money  voluntarily,   but  yielded  it 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        203 

was  sworn.  But  the  actual  taking  of  testimony  was 
delayed  by  Ruef  demanding  change  of  venue  from  Judge 
Dunne's  court.  This  motion  after  the  filing  of  numer- 
ous affidavits  by  both  sides,  was  denied. 

However,  Ruef's  last  motion  delayed  the  taking  of 
testimony  for  two  days  more. 

Upon  Judge  Dunne's  ruling  the  next  move  would 
have  been  the  placing  of  witnesses  on  the  stand.  But 
before  this  could  be  done,  Ruef  whispered  to  his  at- 
torney, Ach.     Ach  arose  and  addressed  the  Court. 

"I  am  requested  by  our  client,  your  Honor,"  Ach 
said  in  substance,  "that  it  is  his  desire  to  have  a  con- 
ference with  his  counsel.  I  would  like  to  draw  your 
Honor's  attention  to  the  fact  that  up  to  this  time  Mr. 
Ruef  has  not  had  a  single  opportunity  to  confer  with  his 
counsel  alone.  If  the  elisor,  or  the  guards,  were  not  in 
the  same  room  they  were  quite  close  by.  I  think,  in 
view  of  this  fact,  that  we  might  be  granted  an  adjourn- 
ment until  say  two  o'clock  of  this  afternoon  so  that  Mr. 
Ruef  may  have  this  privilege  of  conferring  with  us." 

Heney  promptly  denied  Ach's  statement.  "What 
Mr.  Ach  has  stated  is  not  a  fact,"  said  Heney.  "Mr. 
Ruef  has  always  been  granted  privacy  in  his  conference 
with  counsel." 

On  Langdon's  suggestion,  a  half  hour's  recess  was 

up  under  threats  which  they  believed  it  to  be  In  his  power  to  exe- 
cute. If  the  state  fails  to  prove  that  Ruef  will  stand  before  the 
community  merely  as  a  moral  leper,  loathsome  to  be  sure,  and 
despicable  almost  beyond  human  conception,  but  yet  not  proved 
guilty  of  that  for  which  the  law  prescribes  punishment  in  state's 
prison.  If  proper  proof  cannot  be  made  he  must,  of  course,  be 
acquitted  of  this  crime  and  at  once  put  on  trial  for  another.  Noth- 
ing is  gained  by  society  by  the  conviction  even  of  the  most  unmiti- 
gated scoundrel  on  insufficient  testimony.  But  when  the  proof  is 
sufficient  the  salvation  of  society  demands  punishment,  and  more 
particularly  of  punishment  of  the  rich  criminal." 


204       Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

granted  to  allow  Ruef  to  confer  with  counsel.  With 
his  attorneys,  Henry  Ach,  Samuel  M.  Shortridge,  Frank 
J.  Murphy  and  Judge  Fairall,  Ruef  went  into  Judge 
Dunne's  chambers  for  conference. 

On  their  return  to  the  courtroom,  Ach  and  Short- 
ridge,  with  Ruef's  consent,  withdrew  from  the  case  on 
the  ground  that  they  could  not  agree  with  Ruef  as  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  case  should  be  conducted. 
Fairall  and   Murphy   remained  by  their  client. 

And  then  Ruef,  the  tears  streaming  down  his  face, 
addressed  the  Court.  He  stated  his  intent  to  acknowl- 
edge whatever  there  may  have  been  of  wrong  or  mis- 
take in  his  record,  and  pledged  himself,  so  far  as  it  lay 
in  his  power  to  make  it  right.^^^ 

227  Ruef?  statement  was  in  full  as  follows: 

"If  your  honor  please,  with  the  permission  of  the  court,  I  desire 
to  make  a  statement.  I  do  so  after  only  a  short  consultation  with 
my  attorneys,  to  whom  I  have  only  within  the  last  half  hour  dis- 
closed my  determination,  and  against  their  express  protest.  I  take 
this  occasion  to  thank  them  for  their  services,  fidelity  and  friend- 
ship. Notwithstanding  the  Court's  finding  yesterday  that  this  trial 
might  safely  be  cari'ied  on  without  serious  injury  to  my  health, 
physical  or  mental,  I  wish  to  assure  you  that  my  personal  condition 
is  such  that  I  am  at  the  present  time  absolutely  unable  to  bear  for 
two  or  three  months  daily  the  strain  of  an  actual  trial  of  this  case, 
the  constant,  continual,  nightly  preparations  therefor,  the  necessary 
consultation  and  conversation  with  my  attorneys  in  regard  thereto, 
to  say  nothing  of  other  cares  and  responsibilities. 

"Moreover,  the  strain  of  these  proceedings  upon  those  whom  I 
hold  nearest  and  dearest  of  all  on  earth  has  been  so  grave  and 
severe  that  as  a  result  of  these  prosecutions  their  health  has  all 
been  undermined,  they  are  on  the  verge  of  immediate  collapse  and 
their  lives  are  indeed  now  actually  in  the  balance. 

"I  have  occupied  a  somewhat  prominent  position  in  this  city  of 
my  birth,  in  which  I  have  lived  all  my  life,  where  are  all  my  ties  and 
interests,  whence,  wlien  the  time  sliall  come,  I  hope  to  pass  into 
the  eternal  sleep.  I  have  borne  an  honored  name.  In  my  private 
and  in  my  professional  life  there  has  been  no  stain.  In  my  public 
affiliations,  until  after  the  municipal  campaign  of  1905  and  the  elec- 
tion of  the  present  Board  of  Supervisors,  the  abhorrent  charges  of 
the  press  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  no  action  of  mine  ever 
gave  just  ground  for  adverse  criticism  or  deserved  censure;  but 
the  assaults  of  the  press  and  its  failure  to  credit  honesty  of  pur- 
pose, a  desire  to  hold  together  a  political  organization  which  had 
been  built  up  with  much  effort,  the  means  of  otherwise  holding 
them,  did  after  the  election  of  this  Board  of  Supervisors  in  a  meas- 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        205 

"I  desire,"  concluded  Ruef,  "to  withdraw  my  plea 
of  not  guilty  heretofore  entered,  and  to  enter  the  con- 
trary plea,  and  at  the  proper  time  submit  to  the  Court 
further  suggestions  for  its  consideration.^-* 

ure  influence  me  and  the  high  ideals  for  which  I  had  heretofore 
striven. 

"During  the  past  few  weeks  I  have  thouglit  deeply  and  often 
of  this  situation,  its  causes  and  conditions.  To  offer  excuses  now 
would  be  folly.  To  make  an  effort  at  some  reparation  for  the  public 
good  is,  however,  more  than  possible;  to  assist  in  making  more 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  the  system  which  dominates  our  public 
men  and  corrupts  our  politics  will  be  a  welcome  task. 

"I  have  decided  that  whatever  energy  or  abilities  I  possess  for 
the  future  shall  be  devoted  even  in  the  humblest  capacity  to  restor- 
ing the  ideals  which  have  been  lowered;  shall,  as  soon  as  oppor- 
tunity be  accorded,  be  re-enlisted  on  the  side  of  good  citizenship 
and  integrity.  May  it  be  allotted  to  me  at  some  time  hereafter  to 
have  at  least  some  small  part  in  re-establishment  on  a  clear,  sane 
basis,  a  plane  of  high  civic  morality,  just  reciprocal  relations  be- 
tween the  constantly  struggling  constituent  element  of  our  govern- 
mental and  industrial  life. 

"In  the  meantime  I  begin  by  earnestness  of  purpose,  a  purpose 
to  make  the  greatest  sacrifice  which  can  befall  a  human  bein^  of  my 
disposition  to  make,  to  acknowledge  whatever  there  may  haye  been 
of  wrong  or  mistake  and  so  far  as  may  be  within  my  power  to  make 
it  right. 

"I  reached  this  final  determination  last  night  after  careful  reflec- 
tion and  deliberation.  Where  duty  calls  I  intend  to  follow,  whither 
hereafter  the  path  of  my  life  may  lead  and  however  unpleasant  and 
painful  may  be  the  result.  I  make  this  statement  so  that  the  Court 
and  the  whole  world  may  know  at  least  the  motives  which  have 
guided  me  in  the  step  I  am  about  to  take. 

"As  an  earnest  I  have  determined  to  make  a  beginning,  I  am 
not  guilty  of  the  offense  charged  in  this  indictment.  I  ask  now, 
however,  that  this  jury  be  dismissed  from  further  consideration  of 
this  case.  I  desire  to  withdraw  my  plea  of  not  guilty  heretofore 
entered  and  to  enter  the  contrary  plea,  and  at  the  proper  time  sub- 
mit to  the  Court  further  suggestions  for  its  consideration." 

228  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  May  16,  said  of  Ruef's  confes- 
sions: 

"Abraham  Ruef  should  have  thought  of  his  family  before  he 
entered  upon  his  career  of  crime.  They  are  innocent  and  the  public 
need  not,  as  indeed  it  cannot,  withhold  its  sympathy  for  them.  The 
most  terrible  punishment  which  is  inflicted  on  such  criminals  is  the 
distress  which  their  crimes  brings  upon  the  innocent  persons  who 
have  been  accustomed  to  respect  and  honor  them.  But  it  Is  the 
inexorable   doom   which  crime  brings   upon  itself. 

"For  Ruef  himself  the  only  sympathy  possible  is  that  which  one 
might  feel  for  a  wolf  which,  having  devastated  the  sheep  fold,  has 
t>een  pursued,  brought  to  bay  and,  after  a  long  fight,  finally  disposed 
of.  It  is  not  a  case  in  which  the  safety  of  society  permits  leniency 
to  be  shown.  Ruef  has  corrupted  every  brand*  of  the  city  govern- 
ment which  he  could  get  hold  of  and  brought  the  city  almost  to  the 
verge  of  ruin.  Seldom  has  a  man  occupying  an  unofficial  station 
in  life  been  able  to  achieve  so  much  evil.     It  will  be  many  a  year 


2o6       Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion 

"If  the  defendant  wishes  to  change  his  plea  of  'not 
guilty'  to  'guilty,' "  said  Heney,  "the  prosecuting  at- 
torney will  consent  to  the  discharge  of  the  jury,  as  he 
requests,  but  we  think  the  indictment  should  first  be 
re-read  so  that  he  may  enter  the  plea  as  he  wishes." 

The  indictment  was  read. 

"What  is  your  plea?"  asked  Judge  Dunne  of  the 
prisoner. 

And  Ruef  replied,  "Guilty."-^^ 

before  San  Francisco  can  outlive  the  shame  which  the  man  Ruef 
has  brought  upon  her. 

"He  has  not  been  ingenuous  even  in  his  confession,  for  while 
pleading  guilty  as  charged,  he  professes  to  be  not  guilty  of  this 
particular  crime — meaning  merely  by  that  that  he  did  not  extort  the 
money  by  threats  within  the  meaning  of  the  law.  Witnesses,  how- 
ever, would  have  sworn  that  he  did  so.  It  is  unthinkable  that  such 
sums  sliould  have  been  paid  him  voluntarily  by  the  restaurant  keep- 
ers. All  that  Ruef  can  mean  by  his  profession  of  'innocence'  while 
pleading  guilty,  is  a  claim  that  he  succeeded  in  terrifying  the 
restaurant  men  into  submitting  to  blackmail  without  the  use  of 
words  which  the  law  would  construe  as  a  threat.  There  is  no  moral 
difference  between  what  Ruef  would  claim  that  he  did  and  the 
crime  to  which  he  has  pleaded  guilty. 

"Ruef  also  shows  his  disingenuousness  by  attributing  his  situa- 
tion to  'the  assaults  of  the  press.'  Doubtless  he  has  been  assaulted 
by  the  press.  But  the  press  has  accused  him  of  nothing  but  what 
he  has  confessed  and  intimated.  What  fault  has  he  to  find  with 
that?  Shall  the  press  remain  silent  while  thieves  plunder  a  dis- 
tressed city  and  rob  it  of  its  good  name?  Ruef  fought  the  forces  of 
decency  until  he  could  fight  no  longer.  No  man  is  strong  enough  to 
stand  up  against  the  wrath  of  an  outraged  community.  His  physical 
collapse  was  inevitable  and  the  only  mantle  which  charity  can  throw 
over  him  is  that  his  physical  weakness  broke  down  his  mental  fac- 
ulties and  caused  the  self-contradictions  in  what  is  a  virtual  confes- 
sion of  all  that  he  has  been  charged  with." 

229  The  position  of  the  Prosecution  was  most  difficult.  Every 
department  of  the  municipal  government,  with  the  exception  of  the 
District  Attorney's  office,  was  controlled  by  the  corrupt  administra- 
tion, of  which  Schmitz  was  the  official  head.  The  necessity  of  deal- 
ing with  Ruef,  and  the  question  of  immunity  arose  primarily  and 
almost  entirely,  from  the  fact  that  there  was  practically  no  evidence 
against  Schmitz,  except  in  the  French  restaurant  case,  and  that 
there  was  no  evidence  in  that  case  that  Schmitz  received  any  of 
the  money  which  was  collected  by  Ruef.  Consequently  without 
Ruef's  testimony  no  conviction  of  Schmitz  was  possible  at  all^  except 
in  the  French  restaurant  case,  and  in  that  case  his  conviction  was 
not  at  all  certain.  Union  I-abor  party  adherents  were  naturally 
unwilling  to  believe  Schmitz  guilty  until  he  had  been  so  proven. 
The  big  public  service  corporations  and  Herrin  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  were  all  still  in  sympathy  with  him  and  ready  to  back  him 


Ruef  Pleads  Guilty  to  Extortion        207 

for  re-election.  An  election  was  approaching'  early  In  November. 
The  redemption  of  the  city  depended  upon  taking'  its  control  a'way 
from  Schmitz.  The  Police  Commission  and  the  Board  of  Public 
Utilities  were  part  of  the  corrupt  and  discredited  administration. 
During  the  rebuilding  of  San  Francisco  it  was  of  vital  importance 
to  have  these  two  boards  honest.  Hence  the  Prosecution  felt  justi- 
fied in  going  to  unusual  length  to  secure  the  additional  testimony 
against  Schmitz,  which  ought  to  make  his  conviction  certain  in  the 
French  restaurant  case,  and  thus  Immediately  depose  him  from  office 
and  place  the  entire  city  government  in  the  hands  of  honest  men. 
The  new  Mayor  could  appoint  a  new  Board  of  Supervisors,  new 
Police  Commission  and  new  Board  of  Public  Works,  as  well  as 
many  other  important  officials;  and  such  new  Mayor  and  Supervisors 
would  be  reasonably  sure  of  re-election.  Agents  of  the  Public 
Service  corporations  realized  to  the  full  extent  the  importance  of 
preventing  the  conviction  of  Schmitz,  and  of  forcing  the  prosecution 
to  submit  to  the  appointment  of  a  new  Board  of  Supervisors  before 
any  conviction  of  Schmitz  could  possibly  be  secure,  so  that  the  new 
Board  of  Supervisors,  so  selected  through  Schmitz  by  thernselves, 
would  have  the  power  of  appointing  the  new  Mayor  in  case  Schmitz 
were  convicted.  This  new  Mayor  could  appoint  a  new  Police  Com- 
mission and  it  in  turn  a  new  Chief  of  Police,  and  the  new  officials 
would  be  controlled  by  the  same  interests  which  controlled  the  old 
ones. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
ScHMiTz  Convicted  of  Extortion. 

One  week  after  Ruef  had  plead  guilty  to  the  charge 
of  extortion,  his  co-defendant,  Mayor  Eugene  E. 
Schmitz,  indicted  jointly  with  Ruef,  was  brought  to 
trial,  under  indictment  No.  305,  to  which  Ruef  had 
entered  his  plea  of  guilty. 

Hiram  W.  Johnson  and  J.  J.  Dwyer  appeared  with 
Heney  and  Langdon  for  the  Prosecution.  The  defense 
was  represented  by  the  firm  of  Campbell,  Metson  & 
Drew,  assisted  by  John  J.  Barrett  and  Charles  Fairall, 
all  prominent  at  the  San  Francisco  bar. 

The  preliminaries  were  not  unlike  those  of  the 
Ruef  trial,  which,  at  the  point  where  testimony  would 
have  been  taken,  was  stopped  by  Ruef's  plea  of  guilty. 
There  were  the  same  allegations  of  bias,  the  same  at- 
tempts to  secure  change  of  venue,  the  same  appeals  to 
the  higher  courts  in  habeas  corpus  proceedings.  But 
these  moves  availed  Schmitz  as  little  as  they  had  Ruef. 
Point  by  point  the  upper  courts  found  against  the  in- 
dicted Mayor ;  'step  by  step  he  was  dragged  to  pro- 
ceedings before  a  trial  jury. 

The  selection  of  the  jury  occupied  two  weeks.  But 
with  the  swearing  of  the  twelfth  juror,  Schmitz  did  not 
stop  proceedings  with  tearful  confession  and  a  plea  of 
guilty.  Doggedly  the  troubled  Mayor  let  the  trial  go 
on.     The  Prosecution  called  its  witnesses  to  the  stand. 


Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion        209 

One  by  one  Schmitz's  former  associates  as  well  as 
the  restaurant  men  from  whom,  through  Ruef,  he  had 
received  money,  took  the  stand  and  told  the  sordid  story 
of  the  corruption   of  the  Schmitz-Ruef  administration. 

The  specific  charge  under  which  Schmitz  was  tried 
was  that  of  extortion  from  Joseph  Malfanti,  Charles 
Kelb  and  William  Lafrenz,  proprietors  of  Delmonico's 
Restaurant,  of  $1,175.  The  sum  was  Delmonico's  share  of 
the  $5,000  paid  to  Ruef  in  1905,  by  the  French-restau- 
rant keepers  to  prevent  the  liquor  licenses,  without 
which  their  establishments  could  not  be  successfully  con- 
ducted, being  taken  from  them. 

The  testimony  showed : 

(1)  That  Schmitz  had  used  his  power  as  Mayor 
over  the  Police  Commissioners  to  compel  them  in  the 
first  instance,  to  withhold  French-restaurant  liquor  li- 
censes, and  that  later  in  the  latter  part  of  January, 
1905,  he  had  exerted  himself  as  actively  and  effectively 
to  have  the  licenses  granted,  even  removing  from  office 
Police  Commissioner  Hutton,  who  was  standing  out 
against  the   French   restaurants. 

(2)  That  attorneys,  appearing  before  the  Police 
Commissioners,  to  present  the  claims  of  the  French- 
restaurant  keepers  for  licenses,  were  unable  to  secure 
a  hearing.  One  of  these  testified  to  having  advised  his 
client,  and  other  French-restaurant  keepers  that  "there 
is  only  one  man  who  can  help  you,  and  that  is  Mr. 
Ruef." 

(3)  That  a  French-restaurant  keeper  who  owed 
Ruef  money,  and  at  whose  establishment  Ruef  had  his 
headquarters,   approached   his    fellow    French-restaurant 


2IO        Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion 

keepers  and  told  them  that  for  $7,000  a  year  Ruef 
would  represent  them  and  keep  them  secure  in  their 
business  for  two  years.  The  $7,000  demand  was  finally 
reduced  to  $5,000,  $10,000  for  the  two  years. 

(4)  That  the  French-restaurant  keepers  raised 
$8,000  of  the  $10,000  demanded,  and  sent  it  to  Ruef, 
$5,000  the  first  year  and  $3,000  the  next. 

(5)  That  Ruef  refused  to  receive  anything  but  cur- 
rency, would  give  no  receipt  for  the  money,  and  would 
deal  with  one  man  only. 

(6)  That  Ruef  claimed  to  receive  the  money  as  a 
fee  from  the  "French  Restaurant  Keepers'  Association," 
but  that  no  such  association  existed  in  San  Francisco. 

(7)  That  after  the  French-restaurant  keepers  had 
satisfied  Ruef,  Ruef  appeared  for  them  before  the  Police 
Commissioners  and,  after  Commissioner  Hutton  had 
been  removed  from  office  by  Mayor  Schmitz,  secured 
for  them  their  licenses. ^^'^ 

Having  established  its  case  thus  far,  the  Prosecution 
rested. 

The  move  was  unlooked  for.  Ruef  was  known  to 
have  confessed ;  it  had  been  confidently  expected  that 
he  would  be  placed  on  the  stand  to  answer  the  question, 
in  whatever  form  it  could  be  forced  into  the  record : 
Did  you  divide  the  money  which  you  received  from 
the  French-restaurant  keepers  with  Mayor  Schmitz? 

But  Ruef  was  not  put  on  the  stand.  The  public 
marveled,  but  those  behind  the  scenes  knew  that  Ruef 
was  not  the  willing  witness  for  the  Prosecution  that  the 
public  thought. 

230  For  fuller  discussion  of  this  testimony  see  Chapter  "Ruef  and 
Schmitz  Indicted." 


Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion        211 

Ruef  had  confessed  to  Heney  that  he  had  given 
half  the  $8,000  which  he  had  received  from  the  French- 
restaurant  keepers  to  Mayor  Schmitz.  But  Heney, 
having  trapped  Ruef  in  deception,  had  very  good  rea- 
son  for  being  distrustful  of  him. 

Ruef,  forever  seeking  to  justify  himself,  had  told 
Heney  that  he  had  refused  to  appear  before  the  Police 
Commissioners  on  behalf  of  the  French-restaurant  keep- 
ers, until  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin  had  challenged 
him  to  dare  represent  them,  and  claim  the  money  he 
received  from  them  was  a  fee.  Ruef  insisted  that  the 
Bulletin's  challenge  led  him  to  take  the  case. 

In  this  Heney  trapped  Ruef  in  his  trickery. 

Ruef's  purported  contract  with  the  mythical  "French 
Restaurant  Keepers'  Association,"  under  which  the 
French  restaurant  keepers  had  paid  him  $8000,  bore 
date  of  January  6.  Ruef  insisted  to  Heney  that  January 
6  was  the  true  date  upon  which  the  contract  was 
signed.  The  oral  agreement  had  been  made  January  5. 
Heney  then  confronted  Ruef  with  files  of  the  Bulletin 
which  showed  that  the  Bulletin  had  not  mentioned  Ruef 
as  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  French-restaurant  keepers 
until  January  7.  This  was  one  day  after  Ruef  had 
signed  the  purported  contract  with  the  mythical  French 
Restaurant  Keepers'  Association. 

A  stormy  scene  between  Ruef  and  Heney  followed 
this   exposure. -^^     Heney  charged   Ruef  with   falsehood 


2.')i  "You  have  not,"  said  Heney  to  the  trapped  boss,  "told  us 
all  the  truth  in  the  United  Railroads  case.  You  have  not  told  us 
all  the  truth  in  the  case  of  the  gas  rate  matter.  You  have  not  told 
us  all  the  truth  in  the  Bay  Cities  Water  deal.  You  have  not  told 
us  all  the  truth  about  the  deal  with  Herrin  in  relation  to  the  dele- 
gates from  this  city  to  the  Santa  Cruz  convention.  You  have  not 
told  us  all  the  truth  in  the  telephone  franchise  matter.    You  lied  to 


212        Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion 

and  deception,  and  declared  the  immunity  agreement 
canceled.  Heney  then  ordered  Ruef  from  the  room,  and 
did  not,  until  long  after  the  Schmitz  trial  had  closed, 
have  conversation  with  him  again. 

When  Schmitz's  trial  opened.  District  Attorney 
Langdon,  Hiram  Johnson,  all  the  rest  of  Heney's  asso- 
ciates, urged  that  Ruef  be  put  on  the  stand,  insisting 
that  the  case  would  be  greatly  strengthened  if  it  could 
be  proved  by  Ruef  that  Schmitz  had  received  half  the 
extortion  money. 

Heney  conceded  the  strength  of  this  contention,  but 
held,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Ruef  would  lie  so  much 
about  other  things  that  he  would  do  more  harm  than 
^ood  to  the  case.  Personally,  Heney  insisted,  he  wanted 
nothing  to  do  with  him. 

Thus,  in  making  his  opening  statement  to  the  jury 
in  the  Schmitz  case,  Heney  refrained  from  stating  that 
he  expected  to  prove  Schmitz  received  any  part  of  the 
money  which  had  been  paid  to  Ruef. 

But  of  the  break  between  Heney  and  Ruef,  the  pub- 

us  in  the  Parkside  matter,  and  I  caught  you  at  it  before  tlie  Grand 
Jury.  You  tried  to  protect  Will  Crocker  in  that  matter  and  told 
Burns  before  you  went  into  the  Grand  Jury  room  that  you  had  never 
spoken  to  him  on  the  subject.  You  swore  to  the  same  thing  In  the 
Grand  Jury  room  until  you  cunningly  guessed  from  my  questions 
that  Will  Crocker  himself  had  told  the  truth  to  the  Grand  Jury,  and 
that  I  was  getting  you  in  a  bad  hole;  you  then  suddenly  pretended 
to  just  remember  that  you  had  held  one  conversation  with  Will 
Crocker  on  the  trolley  franchise  matter  at  the  Crocker  National 
Bank  that  lasted  a  half  an  hour,  and  that  you  had  held  another 
conversation  on  the  street  with  Will  Crocker  on  the  same  subject  at 
the  corner  of  California  and  Kearny  streets,  which  lasted  an  hour. 
You  had  not  forgotten  either  of  those  talks,  but  you  did  not  think 
Will  Crocker  would  testify  to  them  and  you  wanted  to  curry  favor 
with  him  by  thus  making  him  think  you  wanted  to  protect  him,  and 
you  did  it  because  lie  is  rich  and  powerful.  You  wanted  his  influ- 
ence hereafter  to  help  keep  you  out  of  trouble,  because  you  have  no 
idea  of  acting  in  good  faith  with  the  prosecution.  I  don't  believe 
you  ever  acted  in  good  faith  with  anybody  in  your  life,  but  you 
have  over-reached  yourself  this  time." — See  Affldavit  of  Francis  J. 
Heney,  in  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun  et  als..  No.  823. 


Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion        213 

lie  knew  nothing.  San  Franeisco  looked  to  see  Ruef 
put  on  the  stand.  When  the  Prosecution  rested  without 
calling  this  supposedly  star  witness,  even  the  Defense 
was  taken  by  surprise  and  had  to  ask  continuance  until 
the  following  day  before  calling  witnesses. 

Schmitz  took  the  stand  in  his  own  behalf.  He  denied 
the  statements  which  his  former  Police  Commissioners 
had  made  against  him.  The  Mayor's  story  of  denial 
was  soon  told.     Heney,  on  cross-examination  asked : 

"Did  Ruef  pay  you  any  part  of  the  $5,000  that  has 
been  testified  he  received  from  the  French  restaurants?" 
and  Schmitz  replied:  "I  didn't  know  that  Mr.  Ruef  got 
any  $5,000,  nor  did  I  receive  any  part  of  it."-^^ 

And  then,  in  detail,  Schmitz  denied  that  he  had 
received  any  money  from  Ruef,  or  had  had  any  conver- 
sation with  him  regarding  a  "fee"  which  Ruef  had  re- 
ceived from  the  French-restaurant  keepers. 

In  rebuttal,  Ruef  was  called  to  the  stand.'^^  "Did 
you,"  questioned  Heney,  "in  January  or  February,  1905, 
in  this  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  at  the  house 
of  Eugene  E.  Schmitz,  the  defendant,  at  number  2849 
Fillmore  street,  give  to  Eugene  E.  Schmitz  any  money, 
and  if  so  how  much,  and  in  what  kind  of  money?" 

"I  did,"  answered  Ruef,  "$2500  in  currency." 


232  This  answer  came  In  the  face  of  strong  objection  from 
Schinitz's  counsel.  Mr.  Campbell  went  so  far  as  to  direct  Schmitz 
not  to  answer.  Mr.  Barrett's  objection  was  expressed  in  a  way 
that  caused  Judge  Dunne  to  order  him  to  his  seat.  The  several 
objections  were  overruled  and  the  witness  was  directed  to  answer 
the  question. 

233  Heney,  in  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  Peojple  vs. 
Patrick  Calhoun  et  al.,  No.  823,  says  of  Ruef's  appearance:  "I  did 
not  at  any  time  see  or  speak  to  Ruef,  except  when  he  was  on  the 
witness  stand,  and  then  only  from  a  distance  and  In  open  court  In 
the  regular  course  of  the  trial  and  In  the  performance  of  my  duty  a3 
a  prosecuting  officer." 


214        Schmitz  Convicted  of  Extortion 

"Did  you,  then  and  there,  tell  him,"  pursued  Heney, 
"that  it  was  his  share  of  the  money  you  had  received 
from  the  five  French-restaurant  keepers?"  "I  didn't 
say  to  him,"  replied  Ruef,  "that  it  was  his  share  of  the 
money  which  I  had  received  from  the  French  restau- 
rants. I  did  say  to  him  that  I  had  received  from  the 
French  restaurants  the  sum  of  $5,000,  and  that  if  he 
would  accept  half  of  it  I  should  be  glad  to  give  it  to 
him.     Thereupon   I   gave   it  to  him." 

Ruef  testified  further  to  paying  Schmitz  $1500  early 
in  1906,  half  of  the  second  payment  made  to  him  by  the 
French-restaurant  keepers. 

The  jurors  before  whom  Mayor  Schmitz  was  tried 
took  one  ballot  only.  They  found  the  defendant  guilty 
of  extortion  as  charged  in  the  indictment. 

Following  the  verdict,  Schmitz,  who  eighteen  months 
before  had,  for  the  third  time  been  elected  Mayor  of 
San  Francisco,  was,  as  a  convicted  felon,  confined  in 
the  county   jail.-^* 


234  Where  Schmitz  spent  the  night  of  Thursday,  June  13,  the 
night  of  his  conviction,  is  a  matter  of  dispute.  Sheriff  O'Neil  Insists 
tliat  he  spent  the  night  in  jail.  This  has  been  denied.  The  state- 
ment has  been  made,  apparently  on  good  authority,  that  all  of 
Friday  following,  Schmitz,  accompanied  by  Dominic  Beban,  a  deputy 
sheriff  and  State  Senator  from  San  Francisco,  was  about  town  in  an 
automobile.  But  on  Saturday,  Judge  Dunne  warned  the  sheriff  that 
Schmitz  was  to  be  treated  as  any  other  prisoner.  After  that  day, 
pending  his  appeal  to  the  higher  courts,  Schmitz  was  confined  in 
the  county  jail.  Attorney  J.  C.  Campbell  made  a  hard  fight  to  keep 
his  client  out  of  jail.  Among  other  things,  Mr.  Campbell  held  that 
the  Mayor  had  so  much  official  business  to  attend  to  that  it  was 
practically  necessary  for  him  to  be  in  his  office  all  the  time  for  the 
next  month. 

Schmitz,  under  this  conviction,  was  sentenced  to  serve  five  years 
in  the  penitentiary. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
ScHMiTz   Ousted   From    Office. 

The  confession  of  the  Supervisors  to  bribery  had  no 
sooner  become  known  than  anghng  for  control  of  the 
municipal  government  under  its  prospective  reorganiza- 
tion began. -^^ 

The  public-service  corporation  that  had  during  the 
1905  municipal  campaign  contributed  to  the  campaign 
funds  of  both  the  Union  Labor  party  and  the  opposing 
"Reform"  fusion  organization,  had  no  care  as  to  who 
reorganized,  or  in  what  name  the  reorganization  was 
accomplished,  so  long  as  they  continued  in  control. 
These  corporations  had  larger  interest  in  public  affairs 
than  ever ;  there  was  prospect  of  their  officials  being 
indicted  for  felonies.  But  so  long  as  Schmitz  continued 
to  be  Mayor,  neither  those  who  aimed  to  reorganize  for 
the  best  interests  of  San  Francisco,  nor  those  who  were 


235  As  early  as  March  20,  1907,  two  days  after  the  Supervisors 
gave  their  confession  to  the  Grand  Jury,  The  Chronicle  touched 
upon  the  growing  resistance  to  the  prosecution.     It  said: 

"In  the  leading  political  clubs  there  is  talk  of  Governor  Gillett 
removing  Mayor  Schmitz  and  appointing  a  successor.  This  is  in  the 
line  of  gossip,  however,  for  there  is  a  legal  question  involved,  the 
framers  of  the  municipal  Cliarter  having  provided  no  means  for  the 
removal  of  tlie  head  of  the  municipal  government  should  he  be  found 
criminally  derelict.  There  is  also  some  talk  of  Schmitz  resigning 
if  TIeney  will  vaccinate  him  and  render  him  immune  from  punish- 
ment for  his  offenses,  as  he  is  said  to  have  done  with  the  Super- 
visors. Another  angle  of  the  gossip  in  chis  regard  is  that  the  Mayor 
will  appoint  a  Board  of  Supervisors  picked  by  prominent  merchants 
and  professional  men  who  have  organized  for  the  purpose  of  redeem- 
ing San  Francisco  from  the  toils  of  the  grafters." 


2i6  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

plotting  to  continue  the  old  order  with  new  men,  in 
the  interests  of  the  corporations,  could  act.  The  old 
order  controlled  Schmitz ;  the  opposition,  having  whipped 
confessions  out  of  the  Supervisors,  controlled  the  board. 
Neither  element  could  undertake  reorganization  until 
in  control  of  both  Mayor's  office  and  Supervisors. 

This  deadlock  was  brought  about  by  charter  pro- 
visions empowering  the  Board  of  Supervisors  to  fill 
vacancies  occurring  in  the  mayoralty  office,  and  pro- 
viding that  the  Mayor  shall  fill  vacancies  on  the  Board 
of  Supervisors. 

Had  Mayor  Schmitz  resigned,  the  Supervisors, 
controlled  by  District  Attorney  Langdon,  would  have 
elected  his  successor.  This  would  have  given  the  Prose- 
cution the  Mayor  as  well  as  the  Supervisors.  On  the 
other  hand,  had  the  Supervisors  resigned,  then  Mayor 
Schmitz  would  have  appointed  as  their  successors  men 
in  accord  with  him  and  with  his  policies.  Schmitz  could 
then  have  resigned  and  the  Supervisors  of  his  appoint- 
ment would  have  named  his  successor.  This  would 
have  permitted  the  corrupt  element  to  continue  the  old 
order  in  defiance  of  the  Prosecution.  Thus,  so  long  as 
Schmitz  held  the  office  of  Mayor,  the  Prosecution,  la- 
boring for  good  government,  could  not  permit  the  bribe- 
taking Supervisors  to  resign.  On  the  other  hand,  those 
who  had  furnished  the  bribe  money  did  not  dare  permit 
Schmitz  to  give  up  his  office. 

In  this  astonishing  situation,  that  bribe-givers  might 
not  gain  the  upper  hand,  it  was  necessary  that  the  six- 
teen confessed  bribe-taking  Supervisors  should  continue 
in    the    offices    which    they    had    betrayed,    so    long    as 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  217 

Schmitz's  power  to  appoint  their  successors  continued. ^^^ 
There  were,  too,  further  comphcations.  The  Prose- 
cution could  and  did  secure  the  discharge  from  munici- 
pal positions  of  Ruef's  satellites  who  held  their  places 
under  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  Thus,  soon  after  the 
Supervisors  had  confessed,  Charles  Keane,^^''^  Clerk  of 
the  Board,  was  forced  from  his  position.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  old-time  Schmitz-Ruef  followers  who  owed 
their  appointments   to  the   Mayor,   continued   secure  in 

236  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  April  3,  in  discussing  this  phase 
of  the  situation,  said: 

"The  spectacle  of  the  entire  legislative  body  of  a  city  confessing 
to  the  acceptance  of  great  bribes  is  astonishing.  Their  continuance 
in  office  and  consultation  with  the  good  citizens  as  to  the  best 
methods  of  restoring  good  government  is  unique.  In  many  parts  of 
the  country  there  is  outspoken  disapproval  of  the  course  which  is 
being  taken,  and  loud  declarations  that  if  there  were  any  good  citi- 
zenship in  San  Francisco  the  confessed  rogues  would  be  driven  out 
of  office  and  hustled  into  the  penitentiary.  It  is  declared  that  In 
granting  'immunity'  to  these  Supervisors  the  city  is  again  dis- 
graced. Of  course,  all  this  is  absurd.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  no 
evidence  and  little  probability  that  Immunity  has  been  promised  to 
anybody.  Secondly,  if  the  present  Supervisors  should  resign  Schmitz 
would  promptly  fill  their  places  with  men  whom  he  can  more  im- 
plicitly trust  but  who  would  not  be  subject  to  indictment  or' in  any 
way  amenable  to  decent  influence.  As  for  Schmitz,  he  will  remain 
Mayor  until  he  is  convicted  of  crime.  The  public  does  not  know 
how  that  conviction  is  to  be  got.  It  is  supposed  that  some  Super- 
visor can  give  part  of  the  necessary  evidence,  but  no  Supervisor  can 
be  compelled  to  give  any  evidence  at  all,  and  they  probably  would 
give  none,  if  driven  out.  They  are  not  obliged  to  criminate  them- 
selves. As  for  Schmitz,  he  is  still  defiant.  He  apparently  does  not 
believe  that  under  the  legal  rules  of  evidence  he  can  be  convicted  of 
what  he  evidently  did.  The  journals  which  contrast  our  slow  move- 
m.ent  with  the  swift  punishment  which  befell  briber  and  bribed  when 
the  Broadway  street  railroad  franchise  was  purchased  doubtless  ao 
not  understand  that  the  laws  and  court  procedure  in  California  are 
designed  not  to  convict  criminals,  but  to  aid  their  escape  from  jus- 
tice, and  that  when  Jake  Sharp  bought  the  New  York  Aldermen  he 
did  not  also  buy  the  authority  which  filled  vacancies  in  the  Board. 
As  the  situation  in  this  city  is  unique,  so.  also,  must  be  our  methods 
of  dealing  with  it.  It  may  be  that  every  Supervisor  ought  to  be 
promptly  indicted  but  it  is  certain  that  that  is  the  one  thing  most 
ardently  desired  by  the  innumerable  company  of  grafters  outside 
the  board.     And  it  may  not  be  but  to  help  them." 

23T  Keane  had  two  champions  on  the  board,  however.  Supervisors 
J.  J.  O'Neil  and  O.  A.  Tveitmoe.  They  resisted  Keane's  discharge, 
denouncing  it  as  unwarranted  and  cowardly.  Mayor  Schmitz  vetoed 
the  resolution  removing  Keane.  The  Supervisors,  however,  adopted 
the  resolution  over  the  Mayor's  veto. 


2i8  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

their  jobs.  Thus,  former  Supervisor  Duffey,  appointed 
by  Schmitz  to  head  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  con- 
tinued in  that  position,  although  involved  by  Gallagher 
in   Gallagher's   confession   of  the  bribery  transactions. 

The  Chief  of  Police  held  office  under  the  appointment 
of  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners.  But  Schmitz 
controlled  the  commissioners.  The  chief  had  been  in- 
dicted with  Schmitz  and  Ruef.  The  city  was  clamoring 
for  his  removal.  But  in  spite  of  protests,  Schmitz's 
influence  kept  the  indicted  chief  in  his  place  at  the  head 
of  the  police  department. -^^ 

The  situation  could  not  but  cause  confusion.  To 
the   average   man   on   the    street,   the    Supervisors    had 


238  The  San  Francisco  Call,  in  its  issue  of  June  10,  1907,  said 
of  Schmitz's  continued  hold  on  the  Police  Department: 

"The  Call  has  never  attached  much  importance  to  the  well  meant 
efforts  of  the  various  citizens'  committees  to  persuade  Mayor 
Schmitz  to  reorganize  the  police  force  and  the  governing  commis- 
sion of  that  body.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  Schmitz  might 
engage  in  some  such  transaction  or  bargain  if  he  could  be  shown  his 
own  advantage  therein,  but  that  he  would  surrender  control  of  his 
most  valuable  personal  asset  at  this  time  or,  indeed  at  any  other 
time,  was  scarcely  conceivable  in  view  of  the  character  of  the  man. 
This  is  said  advisedly.  It  is  notorious  that  Schmitz  all  through  his 
long  session  in  office  has  treated  his  control  of  the  police  not  as  a 
public  trust  for  the  common  good,  but  as  so  much  personal  property 
to  be  used  to  the  limit  for  his  private  advantage.  Therefore,  when 
Schmitz,  in  the  first  instance,  gave  a  committee  some  sort  of  pledge 
that  ho  would  comply  with  its  desire  or  requests,  there  was  a  very 
natural  suspicion  that  the  terms  of  the  bargain  as  a  whole  had  not 
been  disclosed.  There  was  the  insistent  inquiry,  'What  does  S.chmltz 
get  by  the  bargain?' 

"That  question  has  never  been  answered  from  the  inside  and 
probably  will  not  be  answered,  but  the  committee  very  shortly  quit 
in  disgust,  realizing,  doubtless,  that  Schmitz  wanted  something  it 
could  not  grant  as  a  consideration  for  his  abandonment  of  power. 

"A  second  committee  that  took  iip  the  work  now  finds  that 
Schmitz  is  deaf  to  its  requests  for  a  reorganization  of  the  police 
force.  The  lack  of  discipline  in  that  body  has  become  a  public 
scandal.  At  Its  head  is  seen  a  man  under  indictment  for  felony,  the 
associate  of  criminals  and  accused  of  tampering  with  veniremen 
called  to  try  Schmitz^an  accusation  whose  truth  he  admits.  Gov- 
ernor Gillett  has  expressed  the  common  knowledge  that  the  Chief 
of  Police  is  incompetent.  He  might  have  used  a  harsher  word. 
But  Dinan  suits  Schmitz.  He  is  the  ready  and  unscrupulous  tool. 
An  honest  man  in  the  same  place  would  be  of  no  use  to  Schmitz!" 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  219 

confessed  to  bribery.  Why,  then,  were  they  permitted 
to  remain  an  hour  in  office?  Why  were  they  not  in- 
dicted, placed  on  their  defense  and  sent  to  the  peniten- 
tiary ? 

The  graft  defense  naturally  took  advantage  of  this 
sentiment.  "Government  by  the  big  stick,"  as  the  hold 
of  the  District  Attorney's  office  over  the  Supervisors 
was  called,  was  condemned  and  ridiculed.  One  heard, 
however,  little  reference  to  the  hold  of  the  beneficiaries 
of  the  Ruef  administration  upon  the  Mayor's  office. 
From  all  sides  the  Prosecution  was  importuned  to  oust 
the  "boodle  Supervisors."  But  the  fact  that  a  "boodle 
Mayor"  would  then  appoint  their  successors  was  not 
given  such  wide  publicity. 

In  addition  to  the  complications  in  the  municipal 
government,  due  to  the  Schmitz  faction's  dogged  re- 
sistance to  the  Prosecution,  combined  with  the  unquali- 
fied yielding  of  the  Supervisors  and  the  partial  con- 
fession of  Ruef,  San  Francisco  was  in  a  condition  of 
confusion  and  discord. 

At  the  time  Ruef  entered  his  plea  of  guilty  to  ex- 
tortion, a  year  had  passed  since  the  great  fire  of  1906. 
Thousands  were  still  living  in  shacks  erected  in  the 
ruins  of  the  old  city.  The  principal  business  streets 
were  littered  with  building  materials.  There  had  come 
the  depression  following  the  activity  of  rehabilitation 
and  the  pouring  into  San  Francisco  of  millions  of  in- 
surance money.  Titles  to  real  property  were  confused 
if  not  in  doubt,  much  of  the  records  having  been  de- 
stroyed in  the  fire.  Thousands  found  themselves  forced 
into  court   to   establish   their   titles.      A   little   later,   the 


220  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

community  was  to  suffer  a  visitation  of  bubonic  plague. 
There  were  many  authentic  plague  cases  and  some 
deaths.  For  months  the  city  was  in  dread  of  quaran- 
tine. 

There  were  labor  disturbances  which  for  weeks  at  a 
time  paralyzed  industry.  At  one  period  between  7,000 
and  10,000  iron-trades  workers  were  out  on  strike. 
At  the  time  Schmitz  was  finally  convicted  of  extortion 
the  telephone  girls  had  been  on  strike  since  May  3rd. 
This  alone  threw  the  complex  organization  of  a  modern 
city  into  extraordinary  confusion.  The  linemen  struck. 
On  June  21,  telegraph  operators  in  San  Francisco  and 
Oakland  left  their  keys. 

But  by  far  the  most  serious  labor  disturbance  was 
the  strike  of  the  street-car  conductors  and  motormen. 
For  weeks  the  entire  street-car  system  was  paralyzed. 
The  first  attempt  to  move  a  car  resulted  in  riot  in 
which  one  man  was  killed  outright  and  twenty-six 
wounded.     A  number  of  the  wounded  died. 

President  Calhoun  of  the  United  Railroads  rejected 
all  offers  to  compromise,  announcing  his  intention  to 
break  the  Street  Carmen's  Union.  He  succeeded ;  in 
the  end  the  union  was  broken  and  scattered,  but  at 
frightful  cost  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  company  and  to  San 
Francisco. 

•  During  the  strike  of  the  carmen  the  city  was  filled 
with  gunfighters  and  thugs  admittedly  in  the  employ 
of  the  United  Railroads.  Indeed,  there  was  no  attempt 
made  to  disguise  the  fact  that  the  United  Railroads 
had  brought  them  into  the  city.  Clashes  between  the 
two  factions  were  of  daily  occurrence. 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  221 

Aside  from  horse-drawn  vehicles  which  had  been 
pressed  into  service,  street  transportation  was,  for  a 
considerable  period,  practically  at  an  end.  The  inability 
of  the  people  to  go  from  place  to  place  paralyzed  in- 
dustry and  business.  Merchants,  hotel  keepers,  manu- 
facturers, all  suffered.  There  were  many  failures.  Citi- 
zens in  all  walks  of  life  implored  Mr.  Calhoun  to  arbi- 
trate his  difference  with  his  men.  He  refused  abso- 
lutely.^^^  Henry  T.  Scott,  president  of  the  Pacific  States 
Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company,  as  doggedly  re- 
fused to  submit  to  arbitration  the  questions  involved  in 
the  telephone  girls'  strike. 


239  When,  through  the  good  offices  of  a  committee  of  citizens,  the 
difficulties  of  tlie  iron  trades  were  finally  adjusted,  The  Call  took 
occasion  to  urge  an  ending  of  the  stiff-neclted  policy  which  kept 
other  employers  and  employees  apart. 

"In  the  car  strike,"  said  The  Call  in  its  issue  of  June  1st,  "In 
the  telephone  strike,  in  the  laundry  strike,  there  is  nothing  that 
cannot  be  disposed  of  by  the  same  method  and  through  the  same 
agency  as  those  that  ended  the  iron  trades  controversy.  There  is 
no  reason  why  all  those  disputes  cannot  be  settled  reasonably.  The 
conciliation  committee  stands  for  public  opinion.  It  voices  the 
demand  of  the  public  for  peace.  No  employer  can  afford  to  refuse 
its  offices,  nor  can  any  representative  of  the  employed  afford  to 
decline  its  offers  of  mediation.  And  if  this  committee,  standing  as 
it  does  for  public  opinion,  cnuld  speak  with  convinction  to  the  iron 
masters  and  their  striking  workmen,  it  should  be  able  to  deal  even 
more  effectively  v.'ith  the  car  strike  and  with  the  telephone  strike. 
Those  disputes  concern  public  utilities.  Street-cars  are  run  and 
telephones  are  operated  under  and  by  virtue  of  grants  and  privileges 
made  by  the  people,  wherefore  the  people  have  the  right  to  inter- 
vene when  the  grantees  of  those  privileges  are  at  war  with  their 
employes.  The  people  have  the  right,  at  least,  to  mediate  for  peace. 
Mr.  Cornelius  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  Mr.  Scott  and  the  leader  of  the 
telephone  strikers  may  refuse  to  listen  to  the  pacific  overtures  of  the 
conciliation  committee,  but  if  they  do  they  must  understand  that 
the  price  of  refusal  is  the  loss  of  public  sympathy  and  support — 
elements  without  which  ultimate  victory  is  impossible. 

"San  Francisco  has  had  about  enough  industrial  warfare.  The 
city  wants  peace,  lasting  peace.  No  sane  man  wants  a  fight  to  a 
finish  between  lahior  and  capital,  or  if  he  does  he  is  San  Francisco's 
enemy.  The  adjustment  of  the  iron-workers'  strike  is  a  hopeful 
sign.  It  points  the  way  to  an  end  of  ail  bitterness  and  contention. 
It  augurs  an  early  return  to  the  harmonious  relations  of  those  who 
earn  and  those  who  pay  wages,  relations  which  are  essential  to  the 
progress  and  prosperitv  of  any  community.  It  is  the  best  news  of 
this  stormy,  stressful  month." 


222  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

The  police  seemed  utterly  unable  to  deal  with  the 
situation.  Governor  Gillett  threatened  to  call  out  the 
militia,  and  companies  at  Los  Angeles  were  actually 
directed  to  be  in  readiness  to  enter  San  Francisco.  But 
this  move  was  finally  abandoned.  And  through  it  all, 
President  Calhoun  refusing  to  arbitrate  or  to  compro- 
mise,   issued    numerous    proclamations  -*^    in    which    he 

240  The  following,  issued  on  May  17,  is  a  fair  sample  of  the 
statements  which  Mr.  Calhoun  gave  out  during  the  period  of  con- 
fusion in  San  Francisco,  in  the  spring  and  summer  of  1907:  ' 

"To  the  American  People — The  newspapers  of  this  city  published 
yesterday  afternoon  and  this  morning  contain  sensational  statements 
purporting  to  give  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Abraham  Ruef  before  the 
Grand  Jury  yesterday  afternoon.  It  is  alleged  that  he  confessed  that 
the  United  Railroads,  through  some  of  its  officials,  bribed  the  Super- 
visors to  grant  the  permit  for  the  overhead  trolley  over  certain  of 
its  roads.  I  do  not  know  if  Mr.  Ruef  made  any  such  statements. 
If  he  did,  they  are  untrue.  I  repeat  with  renewed  emphasis  my 
former  declaration  that  no  official  of  this  company  ever  bribed  any 
one,  authorized  Mr.  Ruef  or  any  one  else  to  bribe  anybody,  knew  of 
nny  bribery,  or  approved  of  anv  briberv. 

"T  chprsre  the  nrosecution  -pnth  having  prostituted  the  great  office 
of  tbp  ■District  Attornpv  to  fiirt^er  tb^  plans  of  nrivate  malice  in 
the  interest  of  a  inan  T\'bo  organized  the  Muri'Vipal  Street  Pailwavs 
of  San  Francis'^o  on  the  17th  dav  of  Anril.  190R.  the  dav  before  the 
earthnuake  and  fire,  with  a  capital  stock  of  $14,000,000,  of  which 
$4  ?>  00. 000  wf>re  «!ubpcrihpd  for  as  follow^:  Ola  us  Snre'^kels  subscribed 
$1  000.000.  .Tames  T).  Pbelan  subsi-ribed  i^l.OOO  OOO  CJeors-e  TOilttell 
subscrlhed  SBOO.OOO  Rndoir.Vi  Spreckels  subscribed  J1. 000. 000,  Charles 
S.  ■^^''beoler  puhs^vlbed  Sion  000.  T-^n  per  i^ent  of  the  amount  sub- 
scribed, or  JiinO  000.  -was  Paid  in  (^ash,  p«?  eVio-wn  by  the  affidavit  of 
the  trea='irer  of  +be  companv,  Ta.mes  K.  Moffltt.  duly  filed  in  the 
Coimtv  Clerk's  ofl\re. 

"T  chars"e  that,  in  f,irthpran"e  of  the  plans  of  the  private  prnce- 
cutor  to  assure  evidence  that  would  involve  the  TTnited  Railroads, 
the  P'strict  .Attornev  b'^s  b^en  ■willina'  to  pu^'i^b^sp  testinnon^'  ■with 
Immnnitv  contracts,  purnortine-  to  srrant  irnmnnity  <^o  se^f-oonfosc■'^<l 
crln-iinals.  M^bl'^'h  r^op  +  mpts  T  arc  1-nformpd  rrpvr^  placed  In  escrow 
iK'lth  the  private  pvooei^^nt^r.  fmri  t'-iroua-h  -whir-h  he  controls  a,  maior- 
'tv  o*"  t^e  Poa.rd  nf  Rnnovvisnrc.  ^rho.  as  q  member  of  the  prosecution 
has  declared,  are  'does'  to  do  his  bidding:. 

"T  charge  that  tho  nistrir't  Attornevx^'as  in  consuUation  •^^'^ith  the 
members  of  the  ppif-pnpfessed  criminals  on  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
in  regard  to  the  pass.a.ge  of  the  resolution  holdins:  up  the  Oearv 
street  railroad  comnanv.  P"d  providing  for  t^e  forfeiture  of  its 
license,  unless  It  violfiori  to  t'-'P  demands  of  Its  strlklnrr  emploves. 

"T  char,ge  that  ■'vhile  the  best  element  In  this  communitv  was 
seeking  to  pre.^erve  lav,'  and  order  thp  "nistrlct  ^ttornev  tvas  In 
secret  conference  with  self-confessed  criminals,  giving  air)  and  com- 
fort to  the  stri^-ers.  Shall  his  great  office  be  prostituted  to  the 
support  of  lawlessness? 

"The  officials  of  this  companv  are  ready  to  meet  their  enemies  in 
the  open,  and  before  they  are  through,  they  expect  to  show  to  the 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  223 

intimated  that  the  Graft  Prosecution  had  brought  on 
the  trouble  which  confronted  San  Francisco.  The 
Prosecution's  object,  Mr.  Calhoun  held,  was  to  injure 
him  and  his  railroad  company.  In  this  connection,  it 
may  be  said,  that  during  the  searching  investigation  of 
the  graft  trials,  not  one  word  of  testimony  was  pro- 
duced to  indicate  basis  for  Mr.  Calhoun's  insinuations 
and  open  charges  that  the  carmen's  strike  was  part  of  a 
plot   to   injure   him   and   his   company.'*^     On   the   con- 


whole  country  the  infamy  of  the  methods  of  the  prosecution,  the 
baseness  of  the  motives  of  the  private  prosecutor,  his  readiness  to 
grant  immunity  to  self-confessed  criminals,  and  the  willingness  of 
the  prosecution  to  aid  the  strikers,  even  if  it  involved  this  com- 
munity in  disorder  and  bloodshed,  provided  it  furthered  the  private 
prosecutor's  personal  ends. 

"The  organization  of  the  Municipal  Street  Railways  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, the  attacks  upon  the  officials  of  the  United  Railroads,  the 
immunity  granted  to  self-confessed  criminals,  the  strike  of  the  car- 
men, the  hold-up  of  the  Geary-street  Railroad  Company,  the  for- 
feiture of  its  license  to  operate,  all  seek  one  common  end,  the  injury 
of  the  United  Railroads  and  its  officials,  and  the  advancement  of  the 
personal  schemes  of  the  private  prosecutor. 

"I  ask  from  the  American  people  fair  play,  and  a  patient  consid- 
eration. I  ask  them  to  withhold  their  judgment,  freed  from  the  bias 
naturally  created  by  sensational  charges.  The  contest  in  which  I 
am  engaged  is  grave,  and  I  cannot  afford  now  to  disclose  the  whole 
strength  of  my  hand,  but  before  this  contest  is  over,  I  confidently 
expect  to  defeat  alike  the  machinations  of  Rudolph  Spreckels.  the 
private  prosecutor,  with  his  corps  of  hired  detectives,  and  Mr.  Cor- 
nelius, president  of  the  Carmen's  Union,  the  leader  of  anarchy  and 
lawlessness,  and  to  see  firmly  established  in  this  community  the 
principles  of  American  liberty,  and  the  triumph  of  truth  and  jus- 
tice." 

On  May  21  Calhoun  issued  a  statement  directly  charging  the 
lawlessness  in  San  Francisco  to  the  Prosecution.     He  said: 

"The  drama  is  now  unfolding  itself  and  the  citizens  of  this  city 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  fix  the  responsibility  for  existing,  condi- 
tions. The  prosecution  has  said  that  the  Supervisors  would  be  'good 
dogs'  and  do  its  bidding.  The  resolutions  concerning  the  Geary- 
street  line  and  the  United  Railroads  are  on  a  par  with  the  neglect 
of  the  board  to  see  that  order  is  preserved.  The  prosecution  is  now 
responsible  for  the  government  of  the  city:  therefore  it  is  responsible 
for  existing  conditions,  including  the  failure  to  suppress  violence 
and  to  protect  life  and  property." 

241  Although  representatives  of  the  Defense  had  intimated  re- 
peatedly that  the  supporters  of  the  Graft  Prosecution  had  brought  on 
the  strike  for  the  purpose  of  injuring  the  ITnited  Railroads,  when 
the  Prosecution  attempted  to  introduce  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
Calhoun's  attorneys  resisted. 


224  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

trary,  the  strike  might  have  been  averted  had  the 
United  Railroads  adopted  a  more  tactful  policy  in  deal- 
ing with  its  men.  And,  in  addition  to  this,  a  more 
conciliatory  attitude  on  the  part  of  President  Calhoun 
would,  during  the  progress  of  the  strike,  have  brought 
it  to  a  close  at  any  time.  The  fact  remains,  too,  that 
during  the  1907  municipal  campaign,  which  opened 
even  while  the  United  Railroads  was  crushing  the  car- 
men's union,  the  support  of  the  United  Railroads  went 
to  the  Union  Labor  party  candidate  for  District  At- 
torney. Heading  the  Union  Labor  party  ticket  was  P. 
H.  McCarthy,  one  of  the  strongest  opponents  of  the 
Graft  Prosecution,  and  at  the  same  time  ardent  backer 
of  the  striking  carmen. 

The  efforts  of  the  United  Railroads  to  crush  the 
carmen's  union,  while  at  the  same  time  exerting  itself 
to  elect  the  Union  Labor  party  candidate  for  District 
Attorney,  indicates  the  confusion  that  existed  in  San 
Francisco  following  the  confessions  of  the  Supervisors 
and  the  revelations  made  by  Ruef.  And  the  efforts  of 
the  various  factions  to  seize  the  municipal  government 
increased  this  confusion  materially. 

The  day  following  Ruef's  confession,  a  committee 
of  businessmen,  representing  the  Merchants'  Associa- 
tion, the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
the  Manufacturers'  and  Producers'  Association  and  the 
Merchants'  Exchange  waited  upon  Spreckels  and  Heney 
to  enlist  the  co-operation  of  the  Prosecution  in  restoring 
normal  conditions.  The  committee — called  the  Com- 
mittee  of   Seven    because    of    its    numbers — -*^    already 

242  The  seven  members  of  the  committee  were:     F.  B.  Anderson, 
manager  of  the  Bank  of  California;  Percy  T.  Morgan,  president  of 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  225 

had  the  endorsement  of  Mayor  Schmitz.  The  Chronicle, 
which  acted  from  the  start  in  the  capacity  of  special 
pleader  for  this  committee,  announced  in  startling  head- 
lines in  its  issue  of  May  18,  that  "Mayor  Schmitz  prac- 
tically turns  reins  of  government  over  to  citizens.  Com- 
mittee of  Seven  may  run  this  city."^^^ 

"With  the  exception  of  the  administration  of  merely 
routine  aflfairs,"  said  the  Chronicle  of  that  date,  "the 
committee,  by  Mayor  Schmitz's  written  agreement,  is  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  the  Mayor  of  San  Francisco." 

Governor  James  N.  Gillett  -**  was  reported  to  be 
heartily  in  accord  with  the  committee's  purposes.  Final- 
ly, in  an  editorial  article,  the  Chronicle  announced  that 
"the  public  looks  to  this  committee  to  restore  the  good 

the  California  Wine  Association  and  a  director  In  the  Pacific  States 
Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company;  F.  W.  Van  Sicklen,  president 
of  Dodge  Sweeney  &  Co.;  F.  W.  Dohrmann,  president  of  Nathan, 
Dohrmann  &  Co.;  Henry  Rosenfeld,  a  shipping  and  commission  mer- 
chant; C.  H.  Bentley,  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and 
Judge  Charles  W.  Slack,  who,  in  1909,  was  to  be  one  of  the  principal 
supporters  of  the  opposition  to  the  prosecution  candidate  for  Dis- 
trict Attorney.  Illness  compelled  Mr.  Dohrmann  to  sever  his  con- 
nection with  the  committee.  Mr.  William  A.  Magee  served  in  his 
stead. 

243  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  May  19,  printed  the  following  as 
the  committee's  declaration  of  principles: 

"Declaration  of  principles  by  the  Committee  of  Seven  and  what 
it  Intends  to  do: 

"We  propose  to  carry  out  our  duty,  irrespective  of  who  is  affected. 

"We  have  adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  the 
fundamental  basis  for  our  final  action. 

"We  intend  to  bring  about  a  clean  condition  of  affairs  in  this 
community  and  make  it  safe  for  habitation  by  human  beings  and 
for  the  Investment  of  capital. 

"We  shall  do  nothing  In  the  nature  of  class  legislation  and  recog- 
nize that  every  element  In  the  community  has  a  right  to  represen- 
tation in  the  government." 

244  In  a  published  statement  printed  May  19,  1906,  Governor  Gil- 
lett said:  "The  good  citizens  of  San  Francisco  are  for  preserving 
order  and  the  good  name  of  this  city,  and  protecting  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  its  people.  The  Committee  of  Seven,  as  I  understand 
it,  were  appointed  for  this  purpose,  and  every  law-abiding  citizen 
and  every  loyal  paper  in  this  city,  the  Bulletin  with  the  rest,  are 
expected  to  strengthen  their  hands  and  encourage  them  In  their 
work." 


226  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

name  of  the  city,  and  to  the  prosecuting  authorities  to 
stand  sohdly  behind  them  while  they  do  it." 

But  in  spite  of  the  Chronicle's  insistence,  the  public 
gave  no  evidence  of  spontaneous  outburst  in  favor  of 
the  committee.  Instead,  there  was  a  general  turning  to 
the  leaders  of  the  Prosecution  to  note  their  attitude. 
The  Prosecution  gave  no  evidence  of  enthusiastic  sup- 
port; quite  the  contrary.  "The  District  Attorney,"  an- 
nounced Langdon,  "will  not  act  with  any  committee  that 
is  named  by  Mayor  Schmitz  to  take  charge  of  the 
government   of   San    Francisco." 

After  several  conferences  with  the  committee,  Ru- 
dolph Spreckels  refused  to  join  with  it  on  the  ground 
that  it  had  placed  itself  in  a  position  "to  directly  or 
indirectly  accomplish  results  very  much  desired  by  Cal- 
houn, Herrin  and  the  coterie  who  are  inimical  to  the 
Prosecution."  Mr.  Spreckels  also  expressed  his  belief 
that  a  majority  of  the  committee  were  sincere  men 
who  went  on  the  committee  with  proper  motives,  but, 
Spreckels  suggested,  "if  this  committee  really  has  its 
origin  in  an  honest  motive,  I  do  not  see  why  it  cannot 
act  on  its  own  volition.  I  do  not  see  the  necessity  of 
this  committee  demanding  that  I  co-operate  with  it.  If 
its  members  want  to  have  a  change  in  the  municipal 
offices  and  the  members  of  the  various  municipal  com- 
missions, let  them  go  ahead  and  outline  their  own 
programme.  I  have  no  desire  to  dictate  who  shall  con- 
stitute the  membership  of  the  various  city  offices.  I 
started  out  in  this  graft  prosecution  to  bring  all  guilty 
municipal  officials  to  the  bar  of  justice  and  have  them 
punished.    That  is  my  single  motive.    I  have  no  ulterior 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  227 

designs  in  this  matter  regardless  of  whatever  anyone 
may  say  to  the  contrary."^*'' 

In  spite  of  the  Chronicle's  statement  that  the  public 
looked  to  the  Prosecution  to  stand  solidly  behind  the 
committee,  and  the  protestations  of  Governor  Gillett, 
the  public  was  content  to  accept  the  judgment  of  Mr. 
Langdon,  Mr.  Spreckels  and  Mr.  Heney  as  final.  With- 
out popular  demand  for  it,  there  was  nothing  for  the 
committee  to  do  but  resign.     And  it  did  resign.^*'^ 

The  resignation  of  the  Committee  of  Seven  brought 
from  Governor  Gillett  a  statement  urging  the  appoint- 

245  The  failure  to  enlist  Spreckels  with  the  Committee  of  Seven 
brought  down  upon  him  the  condemnation  of  leaders  of  the  State 
machine.  "My  surprise  at  this  attitude  of  Mr.  Spreckels,"  said  Gov- 
ernor Gillett  in  an  interview  printed  in  The  Examiner,  May  21,  1907, 
"is  Rreat.  It  means  a  bad  moral  effect  on  the  local  Industrial  dis- 
turbance. If  a  banker  like  Mr.  Spreckels  will  not  act  in  harmony 
with  the  committee  from  the  leading  commercial  organizations  of 
this  city,  then  I  can  readily  account  for  the  friction  all  down  the 
line  in  this  city.  There  ought  to  be  unity  of  action  to  get  the  city 
out  of  its  present  plight,  but  evidently  the  leading  business  .men  of 
the  town,  for  reasons  I  certainly  cannot  understand,  are  not  in  a 
mood  to  act  in  harmony." 

246  When  the  Committee  of  Seven  retired,  May  20,  Committee- 
man Slack  issued  the  following  statement: 

"The  Committee  of  Seven  yesterday  decided  that  nothing  could 
be  accomplished  by  it,  in  view  of  the  attitude  of  Mr.  Spreckels  and 
Mr.  Heney.  We  met  those  gentlemen  for  the  fourth  time  yesterday 
morning  and  were  informed  that  they  could  not  act  with  us.  Mr. 
Spreckels  declared,  in  spite  of  assurances  to  the  contrary  from  every 
member  of  the  committee,  tliat  he  believed  Herrin  and  Calhoun  to 
be  behind  us.  We  had  agreed,  in  the  first  place,  that  nothing  should 
be  done  which  would  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  work  of  Mr. 
Spreckels  and  Mr.  Heney.  When  we  went  to  them  and  asked  their 
co-operation  they  declined  to  co-operate.  Under  the  circumstances 
we  felt  that  the  committee  could  not  be  of  any  further  value  and 
asked  to  be  discharged. 

"I  think  Mr.  Spreckels  was  sincere  in  his  belief  that  we  repre- 
sented interests  opposed  to  him,  and  I  have  nothing  but  the  kindest 
feelings  toward  him,  although  I  believe  that  he  was  mistaken.  I 
believe  the  other  members  of  the  committee  are  with  me  In  this. 

"My  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Herrin  is  only  of  the  most  casual 
sort,  and  I  should  be  more  likely  to  act  against  rather  than  for  him. 
I  do  not  know  Mr.  Calhoun  at  all. 

"It  is  with  great  regret  that  the  committee  has  abandoned  the 
work  which  it  felt  called  upon  to  undertake,  and  only  the  belief  that 
without  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Spreckels  its  work  would  be  valueless 
led  it  to  take  this  step." 


228  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

ment  of  "a  strong  governing  body  to  take  charge  of 
affairs. "^*^  Acting  upon  the  Governor's  suggested  plan, 
the  five  commercial  bodies  decided  upon  the  appointment 
of  a  committee  of  seventy-five,  or,  as  the  Chronicle, 
mouthpiece  for  the  advocates  of  this  course,  put  it, 
"Seventy-five  prominent  citizens  are  to  be  appointed  to 

247  Governor  Gillett's  suggestions  were  contained  in  a  statement 
published  in  the  San  Francisco  papers  on  May  25th.  It  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Mr.  Cornelius,  as  president  of  the  Carmen's  Union,  and  the 
other  labor  leaders  of  San  Francisco  can  bring  an  end  to  the  acts  of 
violence  that  are  committed  daily  in  this  city  If  they  will,  and  In 
the  event  that  they  don't  they  will  be  held  morally  responsible  for 
what  happens  in  the  future,  if  anything  of  a  serious  nature  does 
happen. 

"San  Francisco  does  not  want  to  see  the  State  troops  enter  the 
city.  It  is  better  for  the  labor  unions,  the  citizens,  the  city  and  the 
State  that  they  should  not  take  charge  of  affairs,  but  I  will  say,  if 
this  violence  continues  and  increases  the  militia  will  be  brought  in 
and  will  take  charge  of  affairs.  Nothing  along  that  line  has  been 
planned  as  yet  and  the  State  will  wait  a  reasonable  length  of  time 
for  conditions  to  be  adjusted. 

"Something  must  be  done.  There  must  be  a  strong  governing 
body  to  take  charge  of  affairs,  and  along  this  line  I  have  one  sug- 
gestion to  make.  Let  the  various  civic  bodies  of  San  Francisco  get 
together  and  appoint  a  committee  of  twenty-five  or  fifty  from  their 
members,  a  committee  of  strong-minded  men  who  will  not  allow 
politics  to  enter  into  the  question,  and  who  will  fight  for  San 
Francisco  as  plain  citizens  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  city. 

"Such  a  committee  could  accomplish  much.  The  first  step  to  be 
taken  would  be  to  demand  the  appointment  of  a  new  police  com- 
mission, the  removal  of  officers  in  charge  of  districts  who  are  Incom- 
petent, and  the  substitution  of  competent,  firm  men. 

"Mayor  Schmitz  would  not  dare  to  refuse  to  accede  to  the  de- 
mands of  such  a  committee,  and  if  the  body  acted  with  a  firm 
hand  the  citizens  would  soon  see  an  improvement  in  conditions. 

"The  executive  committee,  which  appointed  the  Committee  of 
Seven  can  bring  about  the  organization  of  such  a  body  as  I  suggest. 
It  was  noticeable  that  when  the  Committee  of  Seven  took  hold  of 
affairs  there  was  less  violence  for  a  couple  of  days,  but  as  soon  as 
the  body  tendered  its  resignation  there  was  an  Increase  in  these 
acts  of  violence. 

"Acts  of  violence  must  cease.  No  self-respecting  community  will 
permit  a  reign  of  crime  day  after  day,  the  throwing  of  bricks  and 
other  missiles,  the  use  of  vile  and  abusive  language,  and  the  beat- 
ing of  men  walking  along  the  streets  peaceably.  Then,  too,  we  have 
our  wives  and  daughters  to  think  of.  Conditions  are  certainly 
deplorable  when  they  cannot  go  upon  the  streets  of  a  great  city  like 
San  Francisco  without  being  com.pelled  to  hear  obscene  language 
and  witness  acts  of  violence  such  as  have  been  committed  within 
the   last  three  weeks. 

"There  are  strong  men  here,  and  if  they  set  about  the  matter  in 
the  right  way  there  will  be  no  occasion  for  the  entrance  of  the 
State  troops  into  the  city." 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  229 

restore  order."  The  Chronicle  went  on  to  say  that 
"It  is  understood  that  Mayor  Schmitz  is  ready  to 
agree  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  recommendations 
of  the  new  committee  as  he  did  when  the  Committee 
of  Seven  was  formed.  He  would  be  glad,  it  is  believed, 
to  have  the  assistance  of  such  a  body  of  men  in  meet- 
ing some  of  the  conditions  which  he  has  to  face."^** 

At  the  time  (Mjiy  29)  of  the  publication  of  the 
Chronicle's  belief  that  Mayor  Schmitz  would  be  glad  to 
have  the  assistance  of  such  a  body  of  men  as  had  been 
proposed,  the  Mayor's  trial  was  drawing  to  its  close. 
A  fortnight  later  he  was  convicted  of  one  of  the  gravest 
felonies  that  can  be  charged  against  an  executive. 
Mayor  Schmitz's  conviction  brought  complete  change 
in  the  situation.  It  made  possible  the  ousting  of  the 
entire  corrupt  administration.  In  the  ousting,  the  com- 
mercial bodies,  as  well  as  the  representative  labor  union 
organizations,  were  given  opportunity  to  co-operate. 
The  refusal  of  the  majority  of  them  to  participate  threw 
the  obligation  upon  the  District  x^ttorney's  office. 

When  the  Jury  returned  its  verdict  finding  Mayor 
Schmitz  guilty  of  felony.  District  Attorney  Langdon 
found  himself  in  an  extraordinary  position.  Upon  him, 
as  District  Attorney,  fell  the  responsibility  of  naming 
the  chief  executive  of  San  Francisco  to  succeed  the  dis- 
credited Mayor. 

There  was  no  question  about  a  vacancy  existing  in 
the  Mayor's  office.  Under  the  California  laws,  a  va- 
cancy in  office  exists  upon  conviction  of  the  incumbent 

248  See  footnote  229,  page  206. 


230  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

of  felony.  The  courts  had  held  repeatedly  that  a  jury's 
verdict  of  guilty  in  a  felony  case  carries  conviction. 

A  vacancy,  therefore,  existed  in  the  Mayor's  office. 
Under  the  municipal  charter  the  Supervisors  alone  were 
empowered  to  fill  it.  But  sixteen  of  the  Supervisors, 
having  confessed  to  felonies,  were  taking  no  steps  v/ith- 
out  the  approval  of  the  District  Attorney.  They  would 
name  for  Mayor,  him  whom  the  District  Attorney  ap- 
proved and  no  other.  Naturally,  Langdon  consulted 
those  associated  with  him  in  the  Graft  Prosecution.  No 
better  earnest  of  the  sincerity  and  disinterestedness  of 
Langdon  and  those  who  were  assisting  him  is  furnished 
than  in  this  crisis.  They  had  it  within  their  power  to 
select  first  Mayor  and  then  Supervisors  who  would  be 
utterly  subservient  to  them.  Instead,  they  proposed  a 
plan  by  which  representative  associations  were  given 
opportunity  to  reorganize  the  municipal  government  by 
naming  Mayor  Schmitz's  successor. 

Nor  was  there  any  hasty  action.  The  office  of 
Mayor  was  not  declared  vacant  until  after  Schmitz  had 
been  sentenced  to  the  penitentiary.  But  Schmitz  was 
in  the  county  jail  and  incompetent  to  act.  It  was  of 
immediate  necessity  that  a  temporary  successor  be  sub- 
stituted. Until  this  were  done,  San  Francisco  would 
be  without  a  chief  executive.  To  meet  the  emergency, 
the  Supervisors  named  Supervisor  Gallagher  to  be 
acting  Mayor.^^^ 

249  Of  the  eighteen  Supervisors,  two,  O'Neil  and  Tveitmoe,  had 
been  appointed  by  Mayor  Schmitz  to  fill  vacancies  after  the  bribery 
transactions.  They  were  in  no  way  involved  in  the  briberies.  They 
were,  therefore,  independent  of  the  District  Attorney.  O'Neil  put 
Tveitmoe  in  nomination  against  Gallagher.  "What  is  the  differ- 
ence," demanded  O'Neil,  "between  Eugene  E.  Schmitz  and  James 
L.  Gallagher?"  Gallagher's  face  went  red  with  rage,  but  there  was 
no  way  of  silencing  the  critic. 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  231 

After  the  sentencing  of  Schmitz  the  rapidly  devel- 
oping situation  made  it  necessary  that  the  convicted 
official's  office  be  declared  vacant  and  his  successor 
appointed.  But  the  successor  had  not  been  named,  nor 
had  plans  for  the  change  in  administration  been  formu- 
lated.-^'' In  this  further  emergency,  it  was  decided  to 
name  one  of  the  Supervisors  to  be  Mayor  to  serve  until 
a  permanent  successor  of  Mayor  Schmitz  could  be 
named.      The    unhappy    Boxton  -^^    was    decided    upon. 


250  This  tardiness  of  appointment  was  not  due  to  any  lack  of 
candidates.  Practically  every  faction  in  San  Francisco  had  its 
choice  for  Schmitz's  successor. 

251  The  election  of  Boxton  to  be  Mayor  may  be  called  the  refine- 
ment of  cruelty.  His  elevation  to  high  executive  office  but  empha- 
sized the  shame  of  his  position.  From  taking  his  oatli  of  office  he 
was  rushed  to  the  witness  stand  to  testify  against  Louis  Glass  on 
trial  for  participation  in  bribing  him  to  oppose  the  granting  of  the 
Home  Telephone  Company  franchise.  D.  M.  Delmas  was  conduct- 
ing the  case  for  the  defense.  Delmas  suavely  turned  Boxton's 
elevation  to  account.  He  scrupulously  addressed  Boxton  as  the 
"Mayor."  And,  in  comparison,  he  wrung  from  the  new  Mayor's 
lips:     "I  took  bribes  and  was  a  spy  for  Halsey." 

Nor  did  Delmas  confine  his  refined  ridicule  to  the  unhappy 
Mayor  Boxton.  Heney  had,  for  example,  asked  the  court  to  take 
judicial  notice  of  the  fact  that  while  Schmitz  was  in  Europe,  Gal- 
lagher had  served  as  acting  Mayor. 

"I  don't  think,"  interrupted  Delmas,  "your  honor  will  extend 
your  judicial  knowledge  that  far,  because  that  would  be  to  keep 
track  of  the  change  of  Mayors  here,  and  it  would  keep  you  too 
busy  to  discharge  your  duties." 

A  grim  party  surrounded  Boxton  while  he  took  his  oath  of  office. 
Boxton  gave  no  evidence  of  pride  of  his  new  station. 

"When  I  think,"  he  said  during  a  lull  in  the  proceedings,  "of 
the  things  that  have  come  into  my  life  in  the  last  ten  years,  I 
realize  how  few  of  them  were  of  my  own  planning.  When  we  came 
back  from  Manila,  I  had  no  idea  of  politics,  but  they  insisted  in 
making  heroes  of  us,  and  I  had  to  run  for  Supervisor.  Now  I  wish 
I  had  not  done  It." 

Later  on  he  gave  out  the  following  interview: 

"This  has  come  to  me  as  a  great  surprise.  I  very  much  regret 
the  circumstances  which  have  led  up  to  this  appointment.  I  hope 
the  people  will  bear  with  me  for  the  few  weeks  that  I  am  in  office. 
As  to  my  official  policy,  I  cannot  discuss  that  at  present. 

"You  know,  it  is  with  a  feeling  of  sadness  I  take  the  office.  I 
am  glad  it  is  a  temporary  appointment  and  will  last  only  a  short 
time.  I  didn't  know  when  I  told  you  this  morning  that  I  was  willing 
to  do  whatever  was  thought  best,  either  to  remain  In  office  or  to 
resign  from  the  board,  that  this  would  be  put  upon  me.  I  am  sorry 
they  have  asked  me  to  take  the  office,  and  will  be  glad  when  it  is 


232  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

The  Supervisors,  by  resolution,  definitely  declared  the 
office  of  Mayor  vacant  and  elected  Supervisor  Boxton 
to  be  Mayor. 

On  the  day  that  Boxton  was  named  Mayor  of  San 
Francisco,  District  Attorney  Langdon  made  public  a 
plan  for  a  convention  to  select  a  Mayor  to  serve  until 
the  successor  of  Mayor  Schmitz  could  be  elected  and 
qualified.  Mr.  Langdon  proposed  that  the  convention 
should  be  made  up  of  thirty  members,  fifteen  to  be 
appointed .  by  organized  labor  and  fifteen  by  the  or- 
ganized commercial  bodies.  On  the  side  of  Labor  were 
apportioned  eight  delegates  to  the  Labor  Council  and 
seven  to  the  Building  Trades  Council.  The  five  com- 
mercial bodies,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Merchants' 
Association,  Board  of  Trade,  Real  Estate  Board  and 
Merchants'  Exchange,  were  allowed  three  delegates 
each.  That  the  convention  might  proceed  in  its  choice 
unhampered,  the  District  Attorney  pledged  that  he  and 
his  associates  would  wholly  refrain  from  participation 
after  the  convention  had  assembled. ^^^ 

But  this  did  not  suit  the  several  factions  at  all. 
Admittedly,  the  Prosecution  could  name  the  Mayor. 
Each  faction  wanted  its  man  named,  and  while  there 
remained  a  chance  for  its  man  to  be  named,  did  not 
care   to   see   the   extraordinary   power   in   the   hands   of 

over.     The  only  thing  I  can  say  is  that  I  believe  during  the  short 

time  I  will  hold  the  ofRce  the  people  will  have  no  cause  to " 

Boxton  halted  for  his  words — "Again  find  fault  with  me." 
The  Examiner  commenting  upon  Boxton's  elevation,  said  "Hav- 
ing put  our  brike-taking  Mayor  in  jail,  and  having  put  in  his  place 
a  taker  of  smaller  bribes,  we  have  now  substituted  for  Gallagher, 
Boxton,  who  differs  from  Gallagher  principally  in  having  sold  his 
vote  for  still  less  of  the  bribing  corporations'  money." 

252  The  District  Attorney's  statement  of  his  plan  to  the  various 
organizations  concerned  will  be  found  in  full  on  page  xxii  of  the 
Appendix. 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  233 

the  District  Attorney  delegated  to  the  uncertainties  of 
a   convention. 

In  the  scramble  for  advantage,  the  self-control  and 
self-forgetting  attitude  of  the  members  of  the  Prosecu- 
tion, instead  of  exciting  admiration,  was  condemned. 
The  Examiner,  referring  to  Langdon's  associates,  for 
example,  announced :  "Their  failure  to  agree  on  any- 
one has  led  to  some  alarm  for  fear  their  divergent 
political  ambitions  are  making  each  of  them  endeavor 
to  secure  a  place  for  his  personal  puppet."  Had  the 
Prosecution  named  the  Examiner's  "personal  puppet," 
this  particular  source  of  criticism  would  undoubtedly 
have  been  silenced  and  the  Examiner's  vilification  and 
abuse  of  the  Prosecution  during  the  years  that  fol- 
lowed averted.  What  is  true  of  the  Examiner  in  this 
regard  is  true  of  the  other  institutions  and  interests 
which,  in  this  crisis  of  the  city's  history,  were  clamor- 
ing for  "recognition. "^^^  District  Attorne}'^  Langdon's 
plan,  on  the  whole,  was  not  received  in  the  spirit  in 
which  it  was  offered. 

The  Building  Trades  Council,  under  the  influence 
of  P.  H.  McCarthy  and  O.  A.  Tveitmoe,  promptly  re- 
jected the  District  Attorney's  proposal  and  refused  to 
name    delegates.-^*      This    action    influenced    the    Labor 


253  The  Chronicle,  however,  endorsed  Langdon's  plan,  and  urged 
the  several  labor  and  industrial  bodies  to  participate.  "As  the 
matter  appears  at  present,"  said  The  Chronicle,  "the  prosecution 
has  resorted  to  the  only  safe  and  reasonable  plan  of  restoring  good 
government,  and  fault-finding  with  tlic  method  adopted  will  be 
confined  to  the  hyper-critical  and  those  who  imagine  that  they 
would  find  profit  in  a  continuance  of  unsettled  conditions." 

254  The  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Building  Trades  Council 
rejecting  Langdon's  plan  for  reorganization  of  the  municipal  gov- 
ernment, were  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  An  invitation  has  been  received  by  this  council  from 
the    District    Attorney    of    this    city    and    county,    requesting    this 


234  Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 

Council,  which,  on  the  ground'  that  in  the  absence  of 
delegates  from  the  Building  Trades  Council  the  Labor 
Council  representatives  might  be  outvoted,  refused  to 
participate. 

Of  the  five  commercial  bodies,  the  Real  Estate  Board 
alone  promptly  accepted  the  District  Attorney's  invita- 
tion. The  board  named  its  three  delegates  and  so 
notified  the  District  Attorney. 

The  Merchants'  Exchange  demanded  that  the  num- 
ber of  delegates  be  increased  from  thirty  to  forty-five 
by  the  addition  of  fifteen  professional  men,  and  pro- 
posed that  the  convention  name  a  new  Board  of  Super- 
visors as  well  as  Mayor.^'^ 

council  appoint  seven  delegates  to  participate  in  a  convention  com- 
posed of  thirty  delegates,  made  up  of  fifteen  representatives  from 
tlie  labor  organizations  of  this  city  and  fifteen  representatives  from 
the  civic  organizations  outside  of  the  labor  organization^;  and 
whereas,  said  convention  is  to  be  called  for  the  purpose  of  select- 
ing a  person  to  be  appointed  Mayor  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco;  and  whereas,  at  this  time  this  council  is  not  possessed  of 
sufficient  information  upon  the  subject  to  determine  whether  or  not 
the  action  proposed  to  be  taken  by  the  convention  would  be  legal, 
and  whether  or  not  such  action,  if  taken,  would  not  lead  to  a 
multiplicity  of  suits  by  reason  of  the  appointment  to  an  office 
where  a  doubt  as  to  the  vacancy  in  said  office  exists,  and  as  a 
result  lead  to  endless  litigation  and  regrettable  confusion;  and 
whereas,  tliose  who  have  arrogated  to  themselves  the  duty  of  guid- 
ing the  destinies  of  the  entire  municipality  of  San  Francisco  only 
lost  Tuesday,  by  the  exercise  of  assumed  power,  through  the  Board 
of  Supervisors,  placed  in  the  Mayor's  chair  one  who  is  to  their  own 
knov.-ledge  legally  disqualified,  to  the  exclusion  of  one  or  the  other 
of  two  gentlemen  who  are  members  of  that  board  in  the  personnel 
of  O.  A.  Tveitmoe  and  J.  J.  O'Neil,  whose  characters,  both  public 
and  private,  are  above  reproach;  and  whereas,  the  Building  Trades 
Council  was  organized  and  Is  maintained  for  the  purpose  of  direct- 
ing, protecting  and  conducting  the  building  industry  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  journeymen  with  justice  alike  to  the  owner,  con- 
tractor and  artisan,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  making  mayors 
through  the  instrumentality  of  star  chamber  conventions,  thereby 
usurping  the  rights  and  prerogatives  of  the  people;  therefore,  be  it 

"Resolved,  That  this  Building  Trades  Council,  in  regular  meeting 
assembled,  instruct  its  secretary  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the 
said  invitation,  and  decline  to  act  thereon  for  the  reasons  herein 
stated." 

25.5  Langdon's  reply  to  the  objections  of  the  Merchants'  Ex- 
change was  as  follows: 

"We   cannot   entertain   any   such   proposition   at   this   date.     W« 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  235 

The  Board  of  Trade  refused  to  co-operate  unless 
the  delegates  be  increased  in  number  by  the  addition  of 
"professional  men  and  others." 

The  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  the  Merchants' 
Association  finally  accepted,  but  stipulated  that  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  thirty  delegates  should  be  required 
for  a  choice. 

The  failure  of  the  several  organizations  to  join  in 
the  selection  of  a  Mayor,  made  it  necessary  for  Lang- 
don  himself  to  proceed  with  the  reorganization.  All 
that  Langdon  and  his  associates  required  was  that  the 
new  executive  should  be  independent  of  political  con- 
trol and  free  of  the  influence  of  those  public-service 
corporations  that  had  been  trapped  in  bribe-giving.  It 
was  also  the  aim  of  the  Prosecutor  to  name  as  Mayor 
one  whose  standing  was  such  that  none  could  be  so 
unfair  as  to  charge  him  with  being  in  the  slightest 
degree  under  the  influence  of  the  Prosecution. 

Langdon  and  his  associates  agreed  that  Dr.  John 
Gallwey  was   independent  of  corrupting  influences  and 


have  already  had  submitted  to  us,  and  have  considered  at  least  one 
hundred  plans  for  calling  an  electoral  convention,  and  after  care- 
fully deliberating  on  all  these  plans,  decided  upon  the  plan  which 
we  have  announced.  This  plan  gives  the  opposing  factions  of  labor 
and  capital  each  an  equal  representation  in  the  electoral  body. 
The  responsibility  of  deciding  who  shall  be  the  Mayor  is  distinctly 
imposed  on  the  two  most  important  factions  In  the  community,  and 
as  far  as  giving  a  square  deal  to  everybody,  we  do  not  see  how  our 
announced  plan  can  be  improved  upon.  Certainly  the  addition  of 
fifteen  delegates  appointed  by  any  special  committee  cannot  improve 
the  plan.  In  our  announcement  it  has  been  clearly  stated  that  all 
the  commercial  and  labor  organizations  called  have  until  Saturday 
to  name  their  delegates,  and  these  delegates  will  assemble  next 
Monday  to  nominate  the  new  Mayor.  The  plan  announced  will  not 
be  modified  in  any  way.  It  places  the  issue  squarely  before  the 
people  and  if  they  do  not  wish  to  act  upon  it  we  cannot  help  It. 

"In  regaid  to  the  proposition  to  permit  the  electoral  conyentlon 
to  name  sixteen  new  Supervisors,  I  will  say  that  while  there  is  no 
objection  to  it,  we  do  not  think  It  is  wise  to  Incorporate  it  in  our 
present  plan." 


236 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 


to  Dr.  Gallwey  the  appointment  was  offered.  But  Dr. 
Gallwey  declined  to  accept  the  responsibiUties  of  the 
Mayor's  office  on  the  ground  that  he  could  not  afford 
to  devote  his  time  to  the  duties  of  the  office  to  the  extent 
that  would  be  required  in  order  to  conduct  it  properly, 
and  on  the  further  ground  that  he  could  be  of  more 
service  to  humanity  in  the  practice  of  medicine  than 
in  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  Mayor. 

The  place  was  then  offered  to  Ralph  Harrison,  a 
former  member  of  the  Supreme  Bench,  But  Judge 
Harrison  declined  on  the  ground  that  he  thought  the 
duties    of    the    office,    under    the    conditions    existing  ^^'^ 

256  Schmitz's  resistance  of  the  elevation  of  Gallagher  no  doubt 
Influenced  the  aged  Justice  in  his  refusal.  From  the  county  jail 
Schmitz  continued  to  insist  that  he  was  still  the  de  facto  Mayor  of 
San  Francisco.  The  Chief  of  Police,  himself  under  indictment, 
sided  with  Sclimitz.  Gallagher  during  his  eventful  term  blocked  by 
the  police,  was  not  permitted  to  enter  the  Mayor's  office.  When 
Boxton  was  made  Mayor,  Langdon  went  with  him  to  the  Mayor's 
oflice  and  seized  the  furniture.  Schmitz's  partisans  boasted  that 
the  Mayor  would  be  released  on  bail,  march  with  his  followers  to 
the  meeting  place  of  the  Supervisors,  and,  with  the  aid  of  the 
police,  oust  Gallagher  by  force.  Schmitz's  resistance  made  itself 
felt  in  many  ways.  For  example,  an  athletic  club  had  arranged  for 
a  boxing  match,  for  which  a  permit  signed  by  the  Mayor  had  to  be 
issued.  Gallagher  had  signed  the  permit.  Chief  of  Police  Dinan, 
however,  refused  to  recognize  it  unless  it  were  signed  by  Schmitz. 
The  manager  of  the  affair  was  compelled  to  go  to  the  county  jail 
for  Schmitz's  signature.  Schmitz  notified  the  bondsmen  of  City 
Treasurer  Charles  A.  Bantel  that  he  would  hold  them  responsible 
for  any  moneys  paid  out  by  Bantel  without  his  (Schmitz's)  signa- 
ture. The  bondsmen  notified  Bantel  that  as  a  matter  of  precaution 
he  must  have  the  signature  of  Schmitz  as  well  as  that  of  Gallagher 
as  authorization  for  paying  out  funds.  This  precautionary  course 
was  followed  to  its  logical  conclusion.  On  July  12,  a  contractor  by 
the  name  of  J.  J.  Dowling  cashed  a  municipal  warrant  which  bore 
the  signatures  of  no  less  than  three  Mayors,  Schmitz,  Gallagher  and 
Boxton. 

Late  in  June,  Schmitz  sent  to  the  auditor  warrants  signed  by 
himself  for  June  salaries  for  himself,  his  secretary,  his  stenographer 
and  his  usher.  The  auditor  decided  to  allow  these  warrants  for 
that  part  of  the  month  up  to  the  date  of  Schmitz's  conviction.  San 
Francisco  allows  its  Mayor  $300  a  month  for  contingent  expenses. 
Both  Schmitz  and  Gallagher  claimed  this  $300  for  July.  The  auditor 
decided  to  recognize  neither  claim.  In  answer  to  Schmitz's  demand 
that  Gallagher  be  ignored  as  Mayor,  the  auditor  sent  the  impris- 
oned executive  a  soothing  or  grimly  humorous  letter,  as  one  may 
view  it,  in  which  he  recognized  Schmitz  as  the  de  jure  Mayor,  pos- 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  237 

would  be  too  onerous  for  him  to  undertake  at  his  time 
of  life. 

Dr.  Edward  R.  Taylor,-^'  dean  of  the  Hastings  Col- 
lege of  Law,  was  then  consulted.  Dr.  Taylor  agreed  to 
accept  the  position.  In  tendering  Dr.  Taylor  the 
mayoralty,  the  Prosecution  left  him  entirely  free  to  con- 
duct the  office  according  to  his  own  judgment.  He 
was  assured  that  no  one  connected  with  the  Prosecu- 
tion would  expect  or  ask  him  to  be  guided  or  controlled 
or  influenced  in  any  way  by  all  or  any  of  them. 

sesslng  "the  honor  and  the  title,"  and  Gallagher  "simply  as  a  de 
facto  Mayor,"   possessing  the  office. 

When  the  bribe-taking  Supervisors  resigned,  Schmitz,  from  the 
county  jail,  appointed  their  successors.  Seven  of  these  Schmitz 
appointees  actually  took  the  oath  of  office.  On  the  night  of  Taylor's 
election  to  succeed  Boxton  as  Mayor,  one  of  Schmitz's  appointees, 
Samuel  T.  Sawyer,  appeared  before  the  board  and  demanded  that 
he  be  sworn  in  as  Supervisor.  Gallagher,  who  was  presiding  re- 
fused to  recognize  Schmitz  as  Mayor  and  refused  Sawyer  a  seat. 

Even  after  Taylor  liad  been  elected.  Chief  of  Police  Dinan  con- 
tinued to  recognize  Schmitz  as  Mayor.  Dinan,  for  example,  placed 
the  automobile  maintained  by  the  city  for  the  use  of  the  .Mayor, 
under  guard  of  a  policeman  and  for  several  days  prevented  Mayor 
Taylor  securing  it. 

Mayor  Taylor  gave  effective  check  to  this  harassing  opposition 
by  refusing  to  sign  warrants  upon  the  treasury  which  bore  Schmitz's 
signature.  Gradually  Schmitz's  resistance  to  the  new  order  died 
out. 

Schmitz  contented  himself  with  issuing  a  statement  through  the 
Associated  Press  that  he  would  be  a  candidate  for  re-election.  He 
said: 

"You  may  announce  that  I  will  be  a  candidate  for  re-election 
this  fall,  and  that  I  expect  to  win.  I  have  already  begun  my  cam- 
paign in  a  preliminary  way,  and  shall  carry  It  forward  steadily 
from  this  time.  I  have  no  fear  of  the  race.  I  am  willing  to  make 
it  without  the  aid  of  tiie  Ruef  organization,  whose  support  I  had 
in  each  of  the  three  campaigns  since  1901.  Presumably  that  organ- 
ization no  longer  exists,  but  its  component  parts,  though  scat- 
tered, are  as  muoh  in  existence  as  ever.  It  is  up  to  me  to  gather 
them  together  and  cement  them  into  an  organization  of  my  own — a 
task  I  am  prepared  to  undertake." 

257  Dr.  Edward  Robeson  Taylor  was  born  at  Springfield,  111.,  Sept. 
24,  1838.  He  came  to  California  in  1862.  In  1865  he  graduated  from 
the  Toland  Medical  College.  In  1872,  he  was  admitted  to  the  Cali- 
fornia bar.  He  served  as  dean  of  the  Hastings  College  of  Law. 
For  thirty  years  he  was  Vice-President  and  President  of  the  Cooper 
Medical  College.  He  was  one  of  the  freeholders  who  framed  the 
present  San  Francisco  municipal  charter,  and  at  the  time  of  his 
selection  as  Mayor,  had  served  San  Francisco  and  the  State  in  many 
Important  public  capacities. 


238 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office 


Boxton,  after  Taylor  had  agreed  to  serve,  resigned 
his  office.  The  Supervisors  then  elected  Dr.  Taylor  to 
fill  the  vacancy.^^^ 

The  next  step  in  the  reorganization  of  the  municipal 
government  was  the  resignation  of  the  sixteen  Super- 
visors who  had  confessed  to  bribery  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  their  successors.     When  Mayor  Taylor  -^^  had 

258  Dr.  Taylor's  selection  gave  general  satisfaction.  "My  belief 
is,"  said  Governor  Gillett  in  a  published  interview,  "that  iie  will 
make  an  able  and  trustworthy  executive.  It  is  particularly  for- 
tunate that  he  is  identified  with  no  factional  politics  and  can  work 
for  a  clean  reorganized  administration  of  the  city  government." 

"The  most  important  feature  connected  with  the  selectioUj"  said 
the  Chronicle,  "is  the  doctor's  absolute  freedom  from  alliances  with 
any  particular  interest.  He  is  free  from  all  entanglements,  and  his 
ability  and  firmness  of  character  give  assurance  that  his  efforts  will 
be  wholly  directed  to  bettering  the  condition  and  restoring  the 
confidence  of  the  community.  We  repeat  that  San  Francisco  owes 
the  doctor  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  sinking  considerations  of  per- 
sonal comfort  and  devoting  himself  to  the  general  welfare,  and 
that  the  prosecution  has  acted  wisely  in  selecting  and  Inducing  him 
to  act." 

On  the  other  hand.  The  Examiner  ridiculed  the  selection.  Labor 
Union  party  leaders  of  the  type  of  P.  H.  McCarthy  were  loud  in 
expressions  of  their  disapproval. 

259  Mayor  Taylor,  the  day  of  his  election,  issued  the  following 
statement: 

"I  accepted  this  office  with  much  reluctance,  and  only  because  I 
believed  that  any  man  who  was  requested  to  serve  the  city  in  this 
capacity  in  the  hour  of  her  need  should  heed  the  request,  no 
matter  what  the  personal  sacrifice  might  be. 

"Had  any  pledges  been  exacted  of  me  by  those  who  tendered  the 
office,  I  would  not  have  considered  the  tender  for  one- thousandth 
part  of  a  second. 

"I  would  not  submit  to  any  dictation  in  the  administration  of 
the  office,  nor  do  1  believe  that  any  one  who  knows  me  would 
attempt  to  dictate  to  me. 

"If  I  am  called  upon  to  appoint  a  Board  of  Supervisors,  I  will 
select  tlie  very  best  men  who  can  be  induced  to  accept  the  offices, 
and  I  shall  exercise  my  own  judgment  as  to  who  are  the  best  men. 

"I  am  going  to  do  the  best  I  can  for  the  city  without  regard  to 
partisan  politics,  and,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  there  will  be  no 
partisan  politics. 

"As  Mayor  of  this  city,  every  man  looks  just  as  tall  to  me  as 
every  other  man. 

"The  first  essential  to  good  government  is  perfect  order,  and  I 
shall  employ  every  arm  of  the  law  to  the  end  that  such  order  shall 
prevail. 

"I  believe  in  autonomy  in  every  department  of  the  city  govern- 
ment, and  I  believe  that  commissioners  should  be  permitted  to 
administer  the  affairs  of  their  respective  departments,  free  from 
dictation,  as  long  as  they  demonstrate  by  their  acts  that  they  are 
honest  and  competent." 


Schmitz  Ousted  from  Office  239 

found  sixteen  representative  citizens  willing^  to  serve, 
the  change  was  made.  One  by  one  the  discredited 
officials  resigned  their  positions.  After  each  resignation 
had  been  accepted  Mayor  Taylor  named  the  resigning 
member's  successor.^"" 

The  scene  was  as  painful  as  it  was  extraordinary. 
When  it  was  over,  the  Schmitz-Ruef  administration,  so 
far  as  the  legislative  and  executive  branches  were  con- 
cerned, had  passed. 


260  The  citizens  named  by  Dr.  Taylor  to  act  as  Supervisors  were: 

Dr.  A.  A.  D'Ancona,  dean  of  the  Medical  Faculty  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  California;  Harry  U.  Brandenstein,  attorney  and  former 
Supervisor;  Gustave  Brenner,  capitalist  and  retired  merchant; 
James  P.  Booth,  newspaperman  and  former  Supervisor;  A.  Comte, 
Jr.,  attorney  and  former  Supervisor;  George  L.  Center,  real  estate; 
Bernard  Faymonville,  vice-president  Firemen's  Fund  Insurance 
Company;  E.  J.  Molera,  civil  engineer  and  president  of  the  Academy 
of  Science;  W.  G.  Stafford,  president  of  the  W.  G.  Stafford  &  Co., 
coal  merchants;  Henry  Payot,  retired  merchant  and  former  Super- 
visor; Matt  I.  Sullivan,  attorney;  Thomas  Magee,  real  estate;  Lipp- 
man  Sachs,  capitalist  and  retired  merchant;  L.  P.  Rixford^  archi- 
tect; C.  A.  Murdock,  printing  and  bookbinding;  D.  C.  Murphy, 
attorney. 

A.  Comte,  Jr.,  successor  of  Supervisor  McGushin,  did  not  take 
office  until  several  days  after  his  associates  on  the  new  board.  This 
was  due  to  McGushin's  hesitation  about  resigning.  Mr.  McGushin 
finally  resigned,  however,  and  Comte  was  named  in  his  stead. 

Of  the  Taylor  Board  of  Supervisors,  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue 
of  July  27th,  said: 

"Mayor  Taylor's  choice  of  men  for  the  new  Board  of  Supervisors 
will  fortunately  not  meet  universal  approval.  It  will  satisfy  all 
honest  men  who  regard  public  office  as  a  public  trust  and  not  as  a 
private  snap,  but  it  will  not  satisfy  those  who  are  accustomed 
either  to  actually  corrupt  public  servants  or  to  use  a  secret  pull  to 
obtain  private  and  undue  advantage.  It  will  not  satisfy  the  crim- 
inal element  who  thrive  by  the  wide-open  town,  and  who  abhor  a 
Board  of  Supervisors  who  will  back  up  an  honest  and  capable 
Mayor. 

"The  board  which  the  Mayor  has  selected  may  be  safely  accepted 
as  the  leaders  of  the  people.  All  interests  are  recognized  except 
that  of  the  boodlers.  The  city  has  many  knotty  problems  to  solve. 
Somebody  must  work  them  out.  Probably  no  two  capable  and 
honest  men  would  resolve  the  various  doubts  which  will  arise  in 
precisely  the  same  way,  and  yet  out  of  all  the  possible  ways  in 
each  case  some  particular  way  must  be  chosen.  And  it  will  be  the 
duty  of  the  Mayor  and  Supervisors,  in  the  light  of  much  more 
information  than  the  majority  of  us  can  obtain,  to  select  that  way. 
And  when  It  has  been  determined  all  patriotic  citizens  must  get 
behind  them." 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
The  Real  Fight  Begins. 

Nine  months  after  Heney  assumed  his  duties  as  As- 
sistant District  Attorney,  Mayor  Taylor  named  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  Ruef-Schmitz  Board  of  Supervisors. 

In  those  nine  months  much  had  been  accompHshed. 
Ruef  had  plead  guilty  to  extortion  and  had  made  partial 
confession  of  his  relations  with  the  public-service  corpo- 
rations. The  Schmitz-Ruef  Supervisors  had  made  full 
and  free  confession,  and  had  been  removed  from  office. 
Mayor  Schmitz  had  been  convicted  of  extortion,  ousted 
from  office,  and  pending  his  appeal  to  the  upper  courts 
was  confined  in  the  county  jail.  The  back  of  the 
Schmitz-Ruef  political  organization  was  broken,  and 
its  forces  scattered. 

Had  the  Prosecution  stopped  here,  the  men  whose 
devotion  and  self-sacrifice  had  made  the  undoing  of 
the  corrupt  administration  possible,  would  have  retired 
with  nothing  more  serious  confronting  them  than  the 
condemnation  of  the  impotent  puppets  of  large  inter- 
ests whom  they  had  brought  to  grief.  But  those  behind 
the  Prosecution  were  not  content  to  leave  their  work 
at  a  point  where  the  regeneration  of  San  Francisco 
had  scarcely  begun.  They  proposed  to  go  to  the  bot- 
tom of  the  graft  scandal.  It  was  not  sufficient,  they 
held,  to  punish  poor  men  who  were  without  friends  or 
influence,  while  their  rich  and  powerful  associates  went 
unpunished.     The  bribe-taking  Supervisors  might  be  put 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  241 

in  the  penitentiary,  but  other  bribe-taking  Supervisors 
would  eventually  take  their  places.  Ruef,  punished  by 
imprisonment,  would  serve  as  an  example  for  political 
bosses  that  would  cause  them  to  hesitate  for  long  before 
embarking  in  corrupt  enterprises  such  as  had  brought 
the  discredited  boss  to  grief.  This  would  make  it  hard 
for  bribe-giving  corporations  to  secure  agents  for  bribe- 
passing,  and  make  bribe-giving  correspondingly  difficult. 
But  the  conviction  of  high  corporation  officials,  re- 
sponsible for  the  bribe-giving  of  public-service  corpo- 
rations, was  regarded  as  more  important  than  all,  for 
this  would  demonstrate  bribe-giving  to  be  unsafe,  and 
check  the  practice  at  its  very  fountain-head.  Such 
conviction,  the  Prosecution  held,  would  have  greater 
deterrent  effect  against  bribery  of  public  officials  than 
the  confinement  of  500  bribe-taking  Supervisors  in  the 
penitentiary.-"^ 


261  Heney's  attitude  toward  the  bribe-givers  is  expressed  in  an 
affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs.  Calhoun  et  als.,  No.  823. 
Heney  in  setting:  forth  a  statement  made  to  Rabbi  Nieto  says: 

"I  consider  that  the  greatest  benefit  which  we  will  have  done 
this  city  and  this  country  by  these  prosecutions  will  be  the  insight 
which  we  will  have  given  them  into  the  causes  of  corruption  in  all 
large  cities,  and  into  the  methods  by  which  this  corruption  is  main- 
tained. The  testimony  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
throws  great  light  on  this  question,  and  Ruef  could  aid  consid- 
erably in  making  it  an  object  lesson  to  the  world,  if  he  would  do  so. 
The  only  way  we  can  stop  this  kind  of  corruption  is  by  enlighten- 
ing the  people  as  to  its  causes  and  by  thereafter  endeavoring  to 
remove  the  temptation  which  causes  evil  by  proper  remedial  legis- 
lation, and  in  order  to  impress  this  object  lesson  on  the  people 
strongly  enough  to  accomplish  much  good  we  must  punish  the 
principal  men  who  have  been  involved  in  it.  Do  not  imagine  this 
is  a  pleasant  task  to  me.  It  is  far  from  being  so.  It  involves  men 
like  Frank  Drum,  whom  I  liked  and  respected  as  a  friend  for 
years,  and  who  has  quite  recently  paid  me  a  good  attorney's  fee 
for  services  performed  for  a  company  represented  by  him.  I  have 
met  Patrick  Calhoun  socially,  and  greatly  admire  his  ability  and 
found  him  to  be  a  man  of  very  agreeable,  attractive  manners.  I 
wish  there  was  some  other  way  to  secure  a  proper  deterrent  effect 
without  causing  these  men  and  their  innocent  families  to  suffer, 
but  unless  the  laws  are  enforced.  Doctor,  our  republican  form  of 
government  cannot  continue  very  long.  It  Is  not  sufficient  to  pun- 
ish   the   poor   man   who    has   no   friends   or  influence.     The   people 


242  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

"I  would  be  willing,"  Rudolph  Spreckels  testified 
at  the  Calhoun  trial,  "to  grant  immunity  to  any  man 
who  would  bring  to  bar  a  man  of  great  wealth  who 
would  debauch  a  city  government,  and  who  would  use 
his  wealth  to  corrupt  individuals  and  tempt  men  of  no 
means  to  commit  crime  in  order  that  he  might  make 
more  money." 

Such  was  the  stand  taken  by  District  Attorney 
Langdon  and  his  associates.  The  announced  policy  of 
the  Prosecution,  therefore,  included  the  prosecution  of 
the  bribe-giver  to  the  end.  In  pursuing  this  policy, 
Mr.  Langdon  and  his  associates  aroused  the  astonish- 
ingly effective  opposition  of  interests  representing  hun- 
dreds of  millions  of  capital.  Every  indictment  of  cap- 
italist charged  with  bribe-giving  was  signal  for  a 
new  group  of  financial  leaders,  their  satellites,  bene- 
ficiaries and  dependents,  to  array  themselves  on  the  side 
of  the  srraft  defense. ^''^ 


■will  lose  respect  for  the  courts  and  for  the  law  unless  the  rich  and 
powerful  can  be  made  to  obey  the  laws.  It  has  a  greater  deterrent 
effect,  in  my  opinion,  to  put  one  rich  and  Influential  man  in  prison 
than  to  put  a  thousand  poor  ones  there.  It  would  do  no  good  to 
send  a  few  miserable,  ignorant  Supervisors  to  the  penitentiary. 
Others  of  the  same  kind  would  soon  take  their  places,  and  the 
carnival  of  crime  would  continue  as  before.  If  we  can  put  Ruef  in 
the  penitentiary  it  will  have  a  wholesome  effect  upon  other  political 
bosses  for  the  next  decade  at  least.  And  if  we  can  put  a  few 
captains  of  industry  there  with  him,  and  particularly  a  few  of  the 
head  officials  of  public  service  corporations,  it  will  have  a  greater 
deterrent  effect  against  bribery  of  public  officials  than  putting  five 
hundred  of  such  officials  in  the  penitentiary." 

262  "I  subscribed  to  the  Graft  Prosecution  fund,"  said  one  capi- 
talist whose  own  skirts  were  clean  of  the  graft  scandal,  "but  before 
the  investigation  was  over  I  had  to  exert  myself  to  prevent  my 
own  attorney  going  to  jail." 

The  manner  in  which  every  indictment  Increased  the  circle  of 
opposition  to  the  prosecution  is  well  illustrated  by  the  following 
selection  from  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  of  March  25,  1907: 

'"rhe  indictment  of  Louis  Glass,  former  vice-president  of  the 
Pacific  States  Telephone  Company,  for  bribery,  on  testimony  given 
to  the  Grand  Jury  by  E.  J.  Zimmer,  who  was  the  auditor  of  the 
company  under  Glass,  and  is  now  vice-president  of  the  reorganized 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  243 

With  every  indictment  came  a  new  group  of  at- 
torneys to  raise  technical  objections  to  the  proceedings, 
all  of  which  the  attorneys  for  the  Prosecution  were 
obliged  to  meet. 

The  first  attack  was  upon  the  validity  of  the  Grand 
Jury.  The  attorneys  for  Ruef  and  Schmitz  had  ap- 
parently exhausted  every  point  that  could  be  raised  for 
the  disqualification  of  the  Grand  Jurors,  but  this  did 
not  prevent  the  heads  of  corporations  who  found  them- 
selves under  indictment  making  similar  attacks.  And 
between  them,  in  this  new  move  to  quash  the  indict- 
ments, the  defendants  enlisted  the  ablest  members  of 
the  California  bar.'*'^ 

In  this  new  opposition  an  astonishing  number  of 
technical  points  were  raised  by  one  or  the  other  of  the 
groups  of  defending  lawyers.     Nothing  was  overlooked. 

corporation,  has  caused  consternation  In  certain  fashionable  circles, 
in  which  Glass  was  one  of  the  most  popular  men. 

"At  the  clubs  of  which  the  indicted  telephone  magrnate  was  a 
member,  much  sympathy  is  expressed  for  him.  He  was  extremely 
popular  because  of  his  affability  and  good-fellowship,  and  he  has  a 
host  of  friends,  who  are  loth  to  believe  that  he  has  committed  a 
crime  which  may  put  him  behind  the  bars  of  San  Quentin  for  four- 
teen years. 

"Attorney  George  Knight,  who,  it  is  expected,  will  be  retained 
as  counsel  for  Glass,  voiced  the  sentiment  of  many  of  his  friends, 
yesterday,  when  he  said: 

"  'T^ouis  Glass  is  one  of  the  best  fellows  in  a  social  way  that 
ever  lived.  He  is  proud,  high-spirited  and  in  all  his  personal  rela- 
tions with  others  he  has  always  been  most  particular.  I  cannot 
imagme  what  lias  led  him  into  doing  what  he  is  said  to  have  done 
In  the  telephone  bribery,  and  I  am  sure  that  in  spite  of  the  indict- 
ment, when  the  truth  is  known,  he  will  not  appear  In  such  a  dis- 
creditable light.'  " 

2(53  Among  those  who  challenged  the  validity  of  the  Grand  Jury 
were:  Patrick  Calhoun,  Thornwell  Mullally,  Tirey  L.  Ford  and 
"William  Abbott  of  the  United  Railroads,  represented  by  A.  A.  Moore 
and  Stanley  Moore;  Louis  Glass  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone 
Company,  represented  by  Delmas  and  Coogan;  John  Martin,  Eugene 
de  Sabla  and  Frank  Drum  of  the  San  Francisco  Gas  and  Electric 
Company,  represented  by  Garret  McEnerney;  T.  V.  Halsey,  repre- 
sented by  Bert  Schlesinger,  William  P.  Humphries  and  D.  M.  Del- 
mas. The  several  attorneys  represented  the  best  legal  ability  ob- 
tainable in  San  Francisco.  No  less  than  fifty-two  attorneys,  all 
working  to  the  same  end,  were  employed  by  the  several  graft 
defendants. 


244  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

Just  before  the  principal  indictments  were  brought, 
for  example,  the  San  Francisco  merchants  had  given 
a  banquet  to  celebrate  the  progress  which  San  Fran- 
cisco had  made  during  the  first  year  following  the 
fire.^^*  Langdon  and  Heney  were  given  places  of  honor. 
They  were  the  heroes  of  the  occasion.  Every  reference 
to  their  work  was  signal  for  tremendous  demonstra- 
tion. There  was  no  suggestion  then  that  the  pursuit 
of  criminals   would   "hurt  business." 

"A  severe  earthquake,"  observed  Frank  J.  Symmes, 
president  of  the  Merchants'  Association,  "is  a  serious 
misfortune,  and  a  great  conflagration  a  great  trial,  and 
each  awake  the  sympathy  of  the  Nation,  but  a  corrupt 
government  is  at  once  a  crime  and  a  disgrace  and 
brings  no  sympathy." 

"We  foresee,"  said  Bishop  William  Ford  Nichols, 
another  of  the  speakers  of  the  evening,  "the  greater 
San  Francisco.  We  mean  to  make  it  fairer  to  the  eye. 
But  how  about  making  it  better?  Size  and  sin  may 
go  together.  Rehabilitated  buildings  may  house  de- 
bilitated character." 

A  month  later,  after  indictments  had  been  brought 
against  some  of  the  most  prominent  business  men  of 
the  city,  word  went  out  that  steps  would  be  taken  to 
disqualify  every  member  of  the  Grand  Jury  who  had  at- 
tended that  merchants'  banquet. 

The  Grand  Jurors  were  again  called  to  the  witness 
stand  and  put  through  a  grilling  to  determine  whether 
or  not  they  were  biased.     Rudolph  Spreckels  was  under 


264  The  Merchants'  As.sociation  banquet,  April  18,  1907,  the  first 
anniversary  of  the  great  earthquake  and  Are. 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  245 

examination  for  hours  in  efforts  to  show  that  his  mo- 
tives in  backing  the  Prosecution  were  bad.^^^ 

Every  step  of  the  proceedings  at  the  organization 
of  the  Grand  Jury  was  scrutinized.  The  question  of 
the  method  of  employing  the  stenographer  to  the  Grand 
Jury  was  made  subject  of  hours  of  argument.  If  she 
were  irregularly  employed,  it  was  held,  she  was  an  un- 
authorized person  in  the  Grand  Jury  room  and  her  un- 
warranted presence  sufficient  to  invalidate  the  indict- 
ments. Garret  McEnerney,  representing  Eugene  de 
Sabla,  Jr.,  Frank  Drum  and  John  Martin,  whose  indict- 
ments grew  out  of  the  bribery  of  the  Supervisors  to  fix 
the  gas  rate  at  85  cents  per  1000  cubic  feet  instead  of 
75  cents,  was  the  first  to  raise  this  question.  But  at- 
torneys for  other  defendants  took  it  up  and  seriously 
considered  it  as  valid  objection  to  the  sufficiency  of  the 
indictments.  A  further  point  was  raised  by  several  of 
the  defendants  that  the  stenographer  had  not  been  prop- 
erly sworn.  The  question  was  seriously  debated, 
whether  she  had  looked  at  Prosecutor  Heney  or  Fore- 


2G5  At  one  of  the  examinations  of  Spreckels,  Attorney  A.  A. 
Moore,  representing  the  United  Railroads,  is  reported  as  demand- 
ing: 

"Can  it  be  that  we  have  got  to  a  point  where  a  private  prosecu- 
tion, hiring  a  lawyer,  hiring  an  attorney,  hiring  a  detective — and 
then  wlien  indictments  are  found  that  you  cannot  set  them  aside? 
Tiiat  is   tlie  line  of  testimony  I  intend  to  pursue." 

"In  addition,"  said  Attorney  Stanley  Moore,  A.  A.  Moore's  asso- 
ciate in  tlie  defense,  "we  expect  to  show  that  Mr.  Spreckels  is  the 
head  and  shoulders  of  a  large  street  i-ailroad  company,  organized 
by  himself  for  the  purpose  of  putting  the  United  Railroads  out  of 
business.' 

"I  will  say  this  again,"  went  on  Moore,  "we  will  prove  the  state- 
ment that  we  have  made,  to  wit:  that  Mr.  Heney  was  an  unauthor- 
ized person  before  the  Grand  Jury  ty  reason  of  the  fact  that  he 
was  during  all  that  time  privately  employed  by  Rudolph  Spreckels, 
who  was  entertaining  a  plan  to  destroy  the  property  of  the  United 
Railroads,  and  to  carry  out  that  plan  they  gave  immunity  to  the 
Board  of  Supervisors  to  carry  out  their  bidding." 


246  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

man  Oliver  at  the  moment  she  was  sworn  to  secrecy.^®® 

206  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  June  7,  1907,  in  discussing  the 
delaying-  tactics  of  the  defendants,  said: 

"It  cannot  be  too  often  repeated  that  in  connection  with  the 
boodle  cases  there  are  but  two  questions  which  are  of  importance, 
and  those  are,  first:  Did  the  accused  commit  bribery  within  the 
meaning  of  the  statute?  and  secondly,  If  not,  did  they  commit 
bribery  in  such  a  way  that  the  law  cannot  reach  them?  Both 
these  questions  will  be  settled  by  the  evidence  in  the  trials.  If 
the  verdict  is  that  the  accused  committed  bribery  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  statute,  they  will  go  to  State's  prison.  If  the  evidence 
shows  that  they  committed  bribery  so  skilfully  that  it  cannot  be 
legally  proved,  they  will  not  go  to  the  penitentiary,  but  they  will 
stand  disgraced  men  and  unconvicted  felons.  In  either  case  all  that 
an  honest  man  prizes  most  highly  is  at  stake,  and  as  all  claim  to 
be  as  innocent  as  unborn  babes,  one  would  expect  the  band  to  be 
tumbling  over  each  other  in  their  eagerness  to  be  first  to  face  a 
jury  and  rehabilitate  their  damaged  reputations  by  a  public  demon- 
stration of  their  untarnished  character. 

"Quite  the  contrary.  So  far  from  their  taking  this  obvious 
course  to  secure  justification  the  aid  of  a  shining  and  costly  array 
of  legal  talent  is  invoked  to  prevent,  if  it  may  be  possible,  any 
show-down  whatever  of  the  evidence  in  any  court.  They  object  to 
even  coming  into  court  and  pleading  whether  they  are  guilty  or  not. 
It  is  declared  that  it  will  be  alleged  that  the  purported  Grand  Jury, 
which  went  through  the  form  of  indicting  them,  is  an  illegal  body, 
with  no  standing  wliatever  in  court,  and  that,  therefore,  there  is  no 
indictment  at  all.  It  will  not,  apparently,  be  claimed  that  the  mem- 
bers of  the  alleged  Grand  Jury  were  not  discreet  citizens,  legally 
competent  to  serve  as  Grand  Jurors;  that  they  were  not  regularly 
appointed  as  such  according  to  law;  that  they  were  not  duly  sworn 
into  office,  or  that,  having  listened  to  sworn  evidence  delivered 
under  the  forms  of  law,  these  reputable  citizens,  upon  that  evi- 
dence, accuse  them  of  felony.  None  of  these  things,  it  is  supposed, 
will  be  alleged.  Wliat  is  to  be  alleged,  it  is  said,  is  that  the  number 
of  names  from  which  the  Grand  Jury  was  drawn  was  113,  instead 
of  125,  which,  by  the  way,  is  promptly  denied.  What  earthly 
bearing  could  that  have,  if  it  were  true,  on  the  guilt  or  innocence 
of  the  men  accused  of  felony?  Can  it  be  conceived  as  possible, 
even  if  that  were  proved,  that  our  laws  are  drawn  so  completely 
in  the  interest  of  criminals  as  to  enable  men  accused  of  felony  to 
escape  trial? 

"The  personal  character  and  qualifications  of  the  Grand  Jurors 
were  fully  brought  out  in  the  Ruef  case.  For  weeks  they  were  sub- 
jected to  a  grilling  which  it  was  a  disgrace  to  our  laws  to  permit. 
That  was  not  repeated  in  the  Schmitz  case.  In  that  the  counsel 
of  the  accused  have  seemed  to  be  relying  for  overturning  a  convic- 
tion on  the  alleged  over-zealousness  of  the  prosecuting  officer. 
Again,  what  has  that  to  do  with  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the 
accused,  even  if  it  has  occurred?  A  District  Attorney  is  in  posses- 
sion of  all  the  evidence,  and  if  that  is  such  as  to  arouse  his  indig- 
nation, shall  the  people  thereby  be  deprived  of  all  remedy?  Obvious 
misconduct  of  an  attorney  is  more  likely  to  injure  the  people  than 
the  accused.  It  could  hardly  have  any  other  influence  on  the  ver- 
dict of  a  jury.  If  no  crimes  are  to  be  punished  in  which  there  is 
energetic  prosecution,  which  may  occasionally  involve  expressions 
which  the  law  discountenances,  we  may  about  as  well  shut  up  our 
criminal  courts.  Almost  any  attorney  may  be  baited  into  making 
uncourteous  remarks.  Happily  the  Supreme  Court  has  recently 
decided  that  no  matter  what  the  District  Attorney  doea,  a  felon 
duly  convicted  upon  sufficient  evidence  shall  not  thereby  be  turned 
loose.     And  that  is  as  it  should  be." 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  247 

Another  point  was  brought  up  by  the  defendants  in 
the  United  Railroads  bribery  case,  that  inasmuch  as  the 
defendants  Calhoun,  Mullally  and  Ford,  had  been  called 
to  tlie  Grand  Jury  room  and  compelled  to  fall  back 
upon  their  constitutional  rights  to  avoid  testifying,  that 
they  had  been  placed  in  a  prejudicial  position  before  the 
Grand  Jury,  which  constituted  reversible  error.-''^  An- 
other objection  was  that  the  Grand  Jury  box  had  been 

207  Heney  in  court  made  caustic  answer  to  this  argument:  "After 
the  Supervisors  had  confessed,"  he  began,  "and  sixteen  of  them  had 
testified  that  they  had  been  paid  $4,000  apiece  to  vote  for  the 
trolley  franchise,  these  defendants  thought  in  their  own  minds  that 
they  were  so  connected  with  the  crime  that  Patrick  Calhoun, 
Thornwell  Mullally  and  Tirey  L.  Ford  each  made  a  public  explana- 
tion in  the  press,  denying  that  they  had  bribed  a  city  official.  A 
crime  had  been  committed,  and  the  first  question  to  be  asked  was. 
Who  had  the  motive?  The  Supervisors  had  testified  that  they 
received  the  money  from  Gallagher,  and  Gallagher  had  testified 
that  he  received  it  from  Ruef.  Did  Abraham  Ruef  own  the  trolley 
lines?  The  question  arose  as  to  who  had  the  motive.  Ford  and 
Mullally  came  to  me  personally  and  told  me  they  had  not  bribed  a 
city  official.  Wasn't  that  an  explanation?  Will  it  not  be  an  ex- 
planation when  these  defendants  are  put  on  trial  that  they  will  say 
it  was  an  attorney's  fee?  If,  under  these  circumstances,  the"  Grand 
Jury  cannot  call  the  officers  of  the  company  to  learn  who  author- 
ized the  giving  of  the  bribe  money,  what  would  an  investigation 
be  worth?  If  we  had  not  called  them,  then  you  would  have  heard 
the  other  cry,  that  this  was  a  conspiracy  to  destroy  the  good  name 
of  Patrick  Calhoun. 

"If  it  had  been  a  poor,  ignorant  man,  or  a  helpless  woman — if 
the  Grand  Jury  had  dragged  her  from  the  jail  and  compelled  her 
to  testify  against  herself,  and  she  had  not  known  what  her  consti- 
tutional right  was,  it  would  have  been  a  different  picture.  But 
these  four  gentlemen  are  learned  in  the  law.  One  of  them  had 
been  Attorney-General  of  this  State,  another  had  been  his  assistant 
in  that  office  for  four  years.  Mullally  is  an  attorney  and  Patrick 
Calhoun  is  an  attorney  whose  mind  is  equal  to  that  of  any  man's 
in  California. 

"Advised  of  their  rights!  Why,  they  came  in  there  on  a  sub- 
poena which  General  Ford  has  declared  in  his  own  affidavit  was 
faulty  and  ineffective.  They  came  on  a  defective  process,  which 
they  knew  to  be  defective.  They  refused  to  be  sworn,  and  they 
were  not  sworn,  and  they  left  the  Grand  Jury  room  without  having 
answered  a  question,  for  the  purpose  of  coming  solemnly  here  to 
get  these  indictments  set  aside  on  the  grounds  that  their  constitu- 
tional rights  have  been  invaded.  That's  tritling  with  the  law. 
Laws  weren't  made  to  juggle  with.  Laws  were  made  for  the  pro- 
tection of  the  innocent. 

"They  knew  they  didn't  have  to  go,  but  they  went,  and  they 
refused  to  testify;  and  now  tliey  want  the  indictments  set  aside 
because  their  great  constitutional  rights  have  been  tampered  with. 

"They  say  he  could  have  waived  the  point  and  testified,  but  be- 
cause he  refused  and  walked  out  he  has  been  deprived  of  his  consti- 
tutional   right." 


248  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

destroyed  in  the  great  fire  of  1906,  and  that  no  order 
had  come  from  any  department  of  the  Superior  Court 
ordering  its  restoration.  Again,  it  was  asserted,  that 
Grand  Juror  James  E.  Gordan  was  a  member  of  the 
Grand  Jury  panel  of  1906,  while  the  other  Grand  Jurors 
were  chosen  from  the  1907  list.  Indictments  brought 
by  a  Grand  Jury  thus  constituted  were  claimed  to  be 
without  effect. 

Had  any  one  of  these  and  many  other  similar  ob- 
jections been  sustained,  all  indictments  against  the  graft 
defendants  would  have  been  invalidated.  Every  objec- 
tion had  to  be  met.  Days  and  weeks  were  spent  by 
the  District  Attorney's  office  in  meeting,  or  preparing 
to  meet  objections  which  to  the  layman  appear  trifling 
and  ridiculous. 

In  the  midst  of  this  technical  fight  to  have  the  in- 
dictments against  them  set  aside,  the  graft  defendants 
received  aid  from  an  unlooked-for  source.  Sympathizers 
with  the  United  Railroads  conductors  and  motormen, 
then  on  strike,  whose  union  Patrick  Calhoun  was  at  the 
time  endeavoring  to  crush — and  finally  did  crush — 
started  an  independent  attack  upon  the  Grand  Jury. 

Four  union  sympathizers  had  been  indicted  in  con- 
nection with  street  riots.  Their  attorneys,  before  Su- 
perior Judge  Cook,  raised  the  point  that  as  the  Oliver 
Grand  Jury  had  continued  in  service  after  a  new  panel 
had  been  drawn  in  the  office  of  the  clerk  and  put  on 
file,  the  term  of  the  Grand  Jury's  service  had  expired. 
It  was,  therefore,  no  longer  part  of  the  machinery  of 
the  Court  and  had  no  power  as  an  inquisitorial  body. 
Under    this    interpretation,    not   only   would    the    indict- 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  249 

ments  against  the  strikers  be  invalidated,  but  those 
against  the  alleged  bribe-givers  also.^"^  Thus  four  of 
Mr.  Calhoun's  striking  carmen,  in  their  efforts  to  evade 
trial  on  charges  growing  out  of  opposition  to  the 
United  Railroads,  were  making  stronger  fight  to  release 
Mr.  Calhoun  from  indictment  than  Mr.  Calhoun,  al- 
though enjoying  the  ablest  legal  counsel  that  money 
could  secure,  had  been  able  to  make  for  himself. 

Eventually,  these  technical  objections  were  decided 
adversely  to  the  defense;  the  validity  of  the  Oliver 
Grand  Jury  was  never  successfully  attacked.  But  the 
technical  objections  raised  caused  delays  which  the  de- 
fense was  able  to  put  to  good  account.  While  the 
prosecution  was  battling  to  force  the  graft  cases  to 
trial  on  their  merits,  the  graft  defense  was  conducting 
a  publicity  campaign  to  misrepresent  and  undermine 
the  prosecution.  The  astonishing  success  of  these  ef- 
forts were  to  appear  later.  By  1909,  for  example,  in 
the  city  which  when  the  graft  prosecution  opened,  the 
practically  universal  sentiment  was  for  the  crushing  out 
of  corruption,  there  was  strong  opinion  that  the  prose- 
cution of  influential  offenders  had  gone  too  far,  had 
been    injudiciously    conducted,    was    "hurting    business," 


2'>s  In  commenting  upon  the  point  raised  by  the  indicted  carmen, 
the  Chronicle,   in   its  issue  of  July  30.   1907,   said: 

"In  attacking?  the  legality  of  the  Grand  Jury  the  attorneys  of  the 
carmen  indicted  for  making  assaults  with  deadly  weapons  and 
throwing  bricks  at  street  cars  may  have  played  into  the  hands  of 
tho.r  arch  enemy,  the  president  of  the  United  Railroads.  '  If  the 
S  jpreme  Court  should  hold  that  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury  passed  out 
of  legal  existence  when  the  144  new  names  were  selected  by  the 
twelve  Superior  Judges,  the  indictments  against  those  connected 
with  the  telephone,  gas,  trolley  and  Parkside  briberies  would  be  set 
aside  and  all  the  work  of  the  prosecution  would  have  to  be  done 
over.  It  would  bo  a  curious  outcome  to  the  efforts  of  an  attorney 
to  free  men  charged  with  crimes  which  the  unions  condemn,  but 
It  would  not  be  the  first  instance  of  a  miscarriage  of  the  purposes 
of  organized  labor." 


250  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

and  that  for  the  good  of  the  community  the  graft  cases 
should  be  dropped. ^*'^ 

The  evident  poHcy  of  the  defense  was  to  undermine 
the  prosecution  and  create  pubHc  opinion  against  it, 
until  both  prosecution  and  community  should  be  worn 
out,  and  made  to  quit. 

The  principal  attack  was  through  the  newspapers. 
The  prosecution  had  not  been  long  at  work  before  the 
weekly  papers,  with  few  exceptions,  were  devoting  the 
bulk  of  their  space  to  ridiculing  and  vilifying  all  who 
were  in  any  way  responsible  for  the  graft  exposures  and 
impuning  their  motives. 

What  these  publications  received  for  their  work  is 
indicated  by  the  subsidies  paid  one  of  the  least  of  San 
Francisco  weekly  papers — a  publication  since  suspended 
— the  Mission  Times. 

In  January,  1907,  a  man  by  the  name  of  Williams 
purchased  the  Times  for  seventy-five  dollars,  giving  his 
unsecured  note  for  that  amount.  In  less  than  a  month 
the  new  proprietor  had  received  $500  from  an  agent  of 
the  United  Railroads.  Later  on,  he  received  a  regular 
subsidy  of  $250  a  week,  something  more  than  $1,000  a 
month,  which  continued  for  thirteen  weeks.  The  sub- 
sidy was  later  reduced  to  fifty  dollars  a  week.  But 
during  the  interim  between  the  weekly  subsidy  contracts, 
lump  sums  were  paid.  It  is  estimated  that  in  little 
over  a  year,  Williams  received  from  agents  of  *he 
United  Railroads  upwards  of  $7,000.  The  Times  a*", 
first  covertly,  and  later  openly,  opposed  the  prosecution. 
If  the  unimportant  Mission  Times,  which  at  the  open- 

269  Some    went    so   far   when    examined   for  jury   service   at    the 
later  graft  trials  as  to  say  they  would  not  vote  to  convict. 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  251 

ing  of  the  year  1907  had  changed  hands  for  seventy- 
five  dollars,  received  upwards  of  $7,000  from  agents 
of  the  defense,  the  not  unreasonable  question  may  be 
asked,  what  did  more  important  weekly  papers,  whose 
graft  prosecution  policy  was  practically  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Times,  receive?  In  this  connection  it  is 
pertinent  to  say  that  the  majority  of  these  publications 
gave  evidence  during  1907,  of  a  prosperity  that  was 
quite  as  mysterious,  if  not  as  suggestive,  as  had  been 
the  prosperity  of  the  Schmitz-Ruef  Supervisors  during 
1906. 

As  has  been  seen,  the  entire  daily  press  of  San  Fran- 
cisco was,  in  the  beginning,  heartily  in  accord  with  the 
prosecution.  Gradually,  however.  The  Examiner  and 
The  Chronicle  "'^  shifted  their  policy.  Even  while  The 
Chronicle  was  backing  the  prosecution  in  its  editorial 
columns,   its  reports  of  the  proceedings  at  the  various 

2V0  The  graft  investigation  uncovered  something  of  the  curious 
ethics  governing  this  sort  of  publicity.  For  example,  Mark  L. 
Gerstle  of  the  law  firm  of  Thomas,  Gerstle  and  Frick,  who  acted  as 
attorneys  for  the  Home  Telephone  Company,  testified  before  the 
Grand  Jury  that  the  company  paid  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle 
$10,000  to  educate  the  people  to  the  idea  of  a  competing  telephone 
system.     The  testimony  was  as  follows: 

"Q.  During  that  time  in  1905,  were  any  newspapers  paid  to 
help  the  good  cause?    A.     Yes. 

"Q.     What  papers?    A.     Only  one. 

"Q.     What  paper  was  that?  A.     Chronicle. 

"Q.     How  much  was  paid  to  It?     A.     $10,000. 

"Q.  What  were  the  terms  of  that  employment?  A.  The  object 
of  paying  that  money  was  to  educate  the  people  to  the  Idea  of  a 
competitive  telephone  system.  There  seemed  to  be  a  prejudice  amongr 
everybody,  or  a  great  many  people,  as  to  the  value  or  necessity  of 
another  telephone  system,  and  we  could  not  obtain  the  assistance  of 
any  newspaper  in  that  work  without  paying  for  it.  Some  required 
it  in  the  shape  of  advertising  which  we  did  not  need — don't  do  any 
good — others  wouldn't  take  It  in  that  way;  the  Chronicle  wouldn't 
take  it  that  way  and  we  were  forced  in  order  to  have  some  news- 
paper a.=pist  us  in  that  work,  to  pay  the  price  which  was  $10,000. 

"Q.  Did  they  give  editorial  work  for  that?  A.  No.  They  were 
supposed  when  the  matters  came  up  before  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors to  write  it  up  favorably,  that  is  to  say,  talk  about  the  advan- 
tage of  a  competitive  telephone  system  in  the  way  of  keeping  out  a 
monopoly,  and  doing  away  with  the  poor  system  of  the  Pacific 
States." 


252  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

hearings  were  colored  in  a  way  well-calculated  to  under- 
mine Langdon  and  his  associates. ^^^  Gradually  the 
covert  opposition  of  its  news  columns  became  the  open 
editorial  policy  of  the  paper. 

But  the  most  effective  opposition  came  from  The 
Examiner.  The  Examiner  supported  the  prosecution 
until  the  conviction  of  Schmitz  and  the  change  in  the 
municipal  administration.  Failure  to  dictate  the  selec- 
tion of  Mayor  and  Supervisors  may  have  had  more  or 
less  influence  in  the  change  of  policy.  At  any  rate,  the 
invention  of  The  Examiner's  writers  and  artists  was 
tortured  to  make  the  prosecution  appear  to  disadvan- 
tage. 

The  most  tawdrily  clever  of  The  Examiner's  efforts 
were  the  so-called  "Mutt  cartoons."  The  cartoons  ap- 
peared from  day  to  day,  a  continuous  burlesque  of  the 
work  of  the  prosecutors,  and  of  the  graft  trials. 

Heney  was  pictured  as  "Beaney;"  Detective  Burns, 
as  Detective  "Tobasco ;"  James  D.  Phelan  as  "J.  Tired 
Feeling;"  Rudolph  Spreckels,  as  "Pickles;"  Superior 
Judges  Dunne  and  Lawlor,  before  whom  the  graft 
cases  were  heard,  as  Judge  "Finished"  and  Judge 
"Crawler,"  respectively.     In  these  "Mutt  cartoons"  every 


271  The  Chronicle's  reports  of  the  work  of  the  Graft  Prosecution 
are  models  of  the  journalism  which  strikes  in  the  dark.  When,  for 
example,  the  defense  called  Rudolph  Spreckels  to  the  stand  in  its 
efforts  to  disqualify  the  Grand  Jury,  The  Chronicle,  while  in  its 
editorial  columns  condemning  such  proceedings,  reported  the  inci- 
dent in  its  news  columns  as  follows: 

"Spreckels,  who  had  been  keeping  in  the  background,  came  for- 
ward, glancing  furtively  at  Heney,  whose  lips  were  moving  nerv- 
ously." In  the  column  from  which  this  quotation  is  taken,  Heney 
is  represented  as  replying  "nervously"  to  charges  made  by  attor- 
neys for  the  defense,  and  Spreckels,  when  a  question  was  put  to 
him  as  looking  "appealingly"  to  the  attorney  representing  the  pros- 
ecution. But  observers  of  the  proceedings  recall  no  perceptible 
nervousness  on  Heney's  part,  nor  "furtive"  nor  "appealing"  glances 
from  Spreckels. 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  253 

phase  of  the  prosecution  was  ridiculed.  For  example, 
when  the  excitement  over  the  graft  trials  was  at  its 
height,  there  were  rumors  that  the  assassination  of 
Heney  or  Langdon  would  be  attempted.  In  ridiculing 
this,  The  Examiner  pictured  "Beaney"  with  a  cross  on 
his  neck  where  the  bullet  was  to  strike.  A  few  weeks 
later,  during  the  progress  of  one  of  the  graft  trials, 
Heney  was  shot  down  in  open  court,  the  bullet  taking 
practically  the  same  course  which  in  the  "Mutt"  car- 
toon The  Examiner  had  pictured.  After  the  shooting 
of  Heney,  The  Examiner  discontinued  the  anti-prosecu- 
tion "Mutt  cartoons." 

Mr.  William  Randolph  Hearst's  San  Francisco  Ex- 
aminer did  effective  service  in  discrediting  the  graft 
prosecution.  But  Mr.  Hearst,  with  curious  inconsist- 
ency, outside  California,  gave  the  prosecution  his  per- 
sonal endorsement. 

In  his  Labor  Day  address  at  the  Jamestown  Exposi- 
tion, September  3,  1907,  for  example,  Mr.  Hearst 
among  other  pleasing  observations  on  the  work  of  the 
San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution,  said :  "You  hear 
much  today  of  how  a  Mayor  of  San  Francisco  has 
fallen,  but  you  hear  little  of  how  powerful  public  service 
corporations  tempted  a  wretched  human  being  with  great 
wealth  and  brought  a  once  respected  man  to  ruin  and 
disgrace.  You  hear  much  of  how  a  Mayor  elected  on 
a  Union  Labor  ticket  is  in  jail,  but  little  of  the  fact  that 
it  was  an  honest  District  Attorney,  elected  on  the  same 
Union  Labor  ticket,  who  put  him  there,  an  honest  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  who  is  doing  his  best  to  put  beside  the 
Mayor  the  men  really  responsible  for  all  this  debauch- 
ery and  dishonor.     While  it  is  the  fashion  to  criticise 


254  ^^^  Real  Fight  Begins 

San  Francisco  just  now,  I  venture  to  assert  that  the 
only  difference  between  San  Francisco  and  some  other 
cities  is  that  San  Francisco  is  punishing  her  corrup- 
tionists.  There  is  many  an  official  elsewhere  who  has 
stolen  office  or  dealt  in  public  properties  who  would  fare 
like  Schmitz  if  there  were  more  honest  and  fearless 
District  Attorneys  like  Union  Labor  Langdon." 

Later  on,  after  Ruef  had  been  sent  to  the  peniten- 
tiary, an  article  on  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecu- 
tion appeared  in  one  of  Mr.  Hearst's  magazines.^^^  The 
article  was  printed  under  the  signature  of  Mr.  Edward 
H.  Hamilton,  one  of  the  ablest  of  Mr.  Hearst's  em- 
ployees. Mr.  Hamilton  gave  the  credit  for  the  work 
of  the  graft  prosecution  to  Mr.  Hearst  and  The  Exam- 
iner. The  men  whose  steadfastness  of  purposes  and 
high  integrity  had  made  even  approach  to  the  prosecu- 
tion of  influential  offenders  possible,  upon  whom  Mr. 
Hearst's  Examiner  had  poured  ridicule  and  abuse,  were 
more  or  less  favorably  mentioned  in  the  article,  but  Mr. 
Hearst  was  given  the  bulk  of  the  credit  for  what  the 
prosecution  had  accomplished.  In  California,  where 
The  Examiner's  treatment  of  the  prosecution  was  well 
known,  Mr.  Hamilton's  article  was  received  with  some 
amusement  and  not  a  little  resentment.^^' 

272  The  Cosmopolitan,  issue  of  July,  1911. 

273  The  Sacramento  Bee,  in  an  editorial  article,  "Laureling  the 
Brow  of  a  Harlequin  'Reformer',"  said  of  Mr.  Hamilton's  claims  for 
Hearst: 

"The  San  Francisco  Examiner  is  advertising  an  article  by  Ed- 
ward H.  Hamilton  in  the  July  Cosmopolitan — an  article  which  is  a 
tissue  of  the  most  shameless  misrepresentations  from  beginning'  to 
end — an  article  which  falsely  and  m_ost  mendaciously  credits  the 
conviction  and  imprisonment  of  Abraham  Ruef  to  William  Randolph 
Hearst. 

"The  Cosmopolitan  is  a  Hearst  magazine;  Hamilton,  a  Hearst 
writer.  Undoubtedly  in  New  York  many  will  believe  Hamilton  has 
written  the  truth.     Every  man  in  California  knows  otherwise. 

"It  is  strange  that  a  writer  with  the  ability  and  the  reputation 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  255 

Although,  with  few  exceptions,  the  poHcy  of  the  San 
Francisco  press  was  adverse  to  the  prosecution,  the 
principal  interior  papers  gave  Langdon  and  his  asso- 
ciates loyal  support.  But  eventually  a  chain  of  papers 
covering  the  greater  part  of  the  interior  of  northern  and 
central   California  was   enlisted  on   the  side  of  the  de- 

of  Kdward  H.  Hamilton  would  for  any  consideration  write  an 
article  so  brazenly  false  that  one  marvels  at  the  audacity  alike  of 
the  eulogist  and   the  laureled. 

"For  Hearst  had  no  more  to  do  with  the  fate  of  Ruef  than  Ruef's 
own  lawyers.  He  labored  on  the  same  side — to  make  the  graft 
prosecution  so  unpopular  that  no  conviction  of  the  guilty  could 
result.  Day  in  and  day  out  the  Examiner  reeked  with  slanders 
aimed  at  the  men  who  were  endeavoring  to  place  Ruef  behind  the 
bars. 

"Day  in  and  day  out,  the  most  malicious  cartoons  were  pub- 
lished against  Spreckels,  Heney,  Phelan,  Burns  and  all  who  were 
battling  for  the  punishment  of  public  and  semi-public  scoundrels. 
Day  in  and  day  out  in  the  Examiner  Judge  Wm.  P.  Lawlor  was 
referred  to  as   'Crawler.' 

"Day  in  and  day  out  the  reports  of  the  trials  were  so  colored, 
so  exaggerated  in  favor  of  the  defense  and  so  emasculated  when 
the  prosecution  scored  a  point,  that  the  Examiner  was  ranked  with 
the  gutter  weeklies  as  a  friend,  champion  and  defender  of  the 
indicted,  and  a  most  venomous  traitor  to  good  government  and  to 
public  honor. 

"The  Examiner  knew  the  feeling  against  it  In  San  Francisco. 
For,  when  Heney  was  shot  and  there  was  danger  of  mob  violence, 
the  editorial  rooms  of  the  Examiner  were  barricaded  and  the  Exam- 
iner men  were  supplied  with  rifles. 

"And  their  fears  were  to  a  certain  extent  justified.  One  of  the 
vilest  cartoons  against  Heney  pictured  'Beany'  in  danger  of  his 
life  from  imaginary  assassins.  On  'Beany's'  neck  was  a  mark  to 
show  where  the  bullet  was  to  strike.  By  an  extraordinary  coinci- 
dence, the  bullet  that  struck  Heney  down  at  the  Ruef  trial  found 
almost  the  identical  spot  that  a  few  days  before  had  been  marked 
on  'Beany's'  neck  in  Hearst's  humorous  cartoon. 

"On  the  night  of  the  day  that  Heney  was  shot,  indignant  San 
Francisco  in  an  immense  mass  meeting  thundered  its  denunciation 
of  Hearst  and  the  Examiner.  And  graft-prosecution  leaders  found 
it  necessary  to  plead  with  an  inflamed  populace  to  attempt  no 
violence. 

"No  more  'Beany'  cartoons  made  their  appearance.  The  Exam- 
iner wrote  of  all  connected  with  the  graft  prosecution  in  terms  of 
respect.  But  this  repentance  born  of  fear  did  not  prevent  Cali- 
fornians  by  the  thousands  stopping  the  Examiner. 

"The  Cosmopolitan  eulogy  of  Hearst  in  the  graft-prosecution 
matter  is  a  long  line  of  known  misstatements  from  beginning  to 
end. 

"It  is  humiliating  to  have  to  record  that  a  man  of  Ned  Hamil- 
ton's talents  could  so  debase  them  as  to  present  in  the  light  of  a 
militant  Paul  of  the  graft  prosecution  one  who  was  its  most  con- 
temptible Judas  Iscariot. 

"Regrettable  indeed  is  it  that 

"Poor  Ned   'must   torture  his   invention 
To  flatter  rogues  or  lose  his  pension.'  " 


256  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

fense.  The  papers  were  started  or  purchased  by  a  news- 
paper pubHshing  company  known  as  the  Calkins  Syn- 
dicate. 

The  Calkins  people  had  for  several  years  been  iden- 
tified with  a  number  of  unimportant  papers,  printed  in 
the  interior.  Suddenly,  from  publishing  obscure  weeklies 
and  dailies,  the  Calkins  Syndicate  became  one  of  the 
most  important,  if  not  the  most  important,  publishing 
concern  in  California.  A  modern  printing  plant,  one  of 
the  finest  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  was  installed  at  San 
Francisco.  The  establishment  took  over  much  of  the 
printing  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  in- 
cluding the  printing  of  the  railroad  corporation's  month- 
ly. The  Sunset  Magazine.  The  Sacramento  Union,  the 
most  important  California  morning  newspaper  printed 
north  of  San  Francisco,  and  the  Fresno  Herald,  an  aft- 
ernoon daily,  were  purchased  outright.  A  bid  was  made 
for  the  San  Francisco  Post,^''*  but  terms  could  not 
be  made.  The  Calkins  people  accordingly  started  the 
San  Francisco  Globe,  an  afternoon  daily  newspaper. 
Less  important  papers  were  established  at  various  points. 
In  an  increditably  short  period,  the  Calkins  Syndicate 
had  a  chain  of  newspapers  covering  the  greater  part  of 
northern  and  central  California. 

The  distinctive  feature  of  these  publications  was  their 
opposition  to  the  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution.  But 
the  abuse  of  the  Calkins  newspapers  was  not  so  cleverly 
presented  as  in  the  Examiner,  nor  so  adroitly  handled 
as  in  the  Chronicle.     So  violent  were  the  Calkins  papers' 

274  After  the  failure  of  the  Calkins  syndicate  its  successors  to 
the  ownership  of  "The  Globe,"  purchased  the  Post  and  combined  the 
two  in  one  publication  under  the  name  of  Post-Globe.  The  policy  of 
the  paper  was  not  changed. 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  257 

attacks,  in  fact,  that  they  injured  rather  than  assisted 
the  defendants'  cause.  This  was  generally  recognized. 
The  Calkins  Syndicate,  after  losing  whatever  effective- 
ness it  may  have  had,  eventually  went  into  bankruptcy. 


275 


275  The  astonishing  business  conditions  under  which  the  Calkins 
Syndicate  was  conducted  were  brought  out  during  the  proceedings 
in  bankruptcy.  For  example:  The  Union  Trust  Company,  closely 
connected  financially  with  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  and  the 
United  Railroads,  advanced  the  syndicate  $175,000. 

To  secure  this  loan,  the  Syndicate  gave  the  Union  Trust  Com- 
pany as  collateral  1251  shares  of  the  2500  shares  of  the  capital  stock 
of  the  Sacramento  Publishing  Company,  150,100  shares  of  the  300,000 
shares  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  Calkins  Publishing  House,  the 
majority  of  the  capital  stock  of  the  Fresno  Publishing  Company, 
which  published  the  FYesno  "Herald"  and  bonds  of  the  company 
publishing  the  San  Francisco  "Globe,"  valued  at  $30,000. 

This  loan  remained  unpaid  at  the  time  of  the  Syndicate's  failure. 
The  stock  of  the  Frer^no  Publishing  Company  sold  under  the  hammer 
for  $4.S50.  The  1251  shares  of  the  Sacramento  Publishing  Company 
were  estimated  to  be  worth  $51,000.  The  stock  of  the  Calkins  Pub- 
lishing Jlouse  was  of  doubtful  value.  The  Union  Trust  Company, 
before  the  failure,  released  the  Globe  bonds  without  payment  of  the 
note  or  consideration  of  other  security.  This  left  the  stock  of  the 
Sacramento  Publishing  Company,  valued  at  perhaps  $51,000,  as  sure 
security  for  the  $175,000  loan. 

But  this  stock  was  curiously  involved.  The  entire  stock  of  the 
company  consisted  of  2500  shares  of  a  par  value  of  $100  a  share. 
The  corporation's  property  consisted  of  the  Sacramento  Union  news- 
paper and  the  real  property  where  the  paper  was  published. 

Soon  after  purchasing  the  Sacramento  stock,  the  Calkins  Syndi- 
cate organized  a  second  Sacramento  Publishing  Company.  The  first 
company — that  of  the  2500  shares — was  organized  as  The  Sacra- 
mento Publishing  Company.  The  Calkins  people  in  organizing  the 
second  company  dropped  the  "The,"  calling  it  "Sacramento  Pub- 
lishing Company."  The  second  company  was  organized  with  a 
capital  stock  of  300,000  shares, — 175,000  shares  common  stock  and 
125,000  shares  preferred. 

The  Syndicate  took  100,000  shares  of  this  preferred  stock  to  the 
London,  Paris  and  American  Bank,  and  used  it  with  certain  stock 
of  the  Nevada  County  Publishing  Company,  another  Calkins  con- 
cern, as  collateral  to  secure  a  loan  of  $30,000.  Of  the  25,000  (pre- 
ferred) shares  remaining,  the  Calkins  people  sold  10,000  shares  for 
money.  The  15.000  shares  remaining,  Mr.  Willard  P.  Calkins,  head 
of  the  Calkins  Syndicate,  took  to  compensate  him  for  his  peculiar 
labors  in  the  transaction.  This  disposed  of  the  125,000  shares  of 
preferred  stock  in  the  second  company. 

The  175,000  shares  of  common  stock  still  remained  to  be  disposed 
of.  Mr.  Calkins,  as  president  of  the  Calkins  Syndicate,  wanting 
more  money,  took  the  175,000  shares  to  the  London,  Paris  and 
American  Bank,  and  pledged  them  as  part  collateral  for  a  second 
loan.  He  did  more— he  pledged  the  "Union's"  Associated  Press 
franchise  as  further  security  for  this  second  loan. 

Eventually,  the  second  loan  was  paid  off,  but  the  London,  Paris 
and  American  Bank  continued  to  hold  the  175.000  shares  of  common 
stock  and  the  Associated  Press  franchise,  under  an  alleged  col- 
lateral agreement,  as  further  security  for  the  first  loan  of  $30,000. 
The    first   loan    was    eventually    reduced    to    $16,085.02.      When    the 


258  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

Almost  as  effective  as  the  newspaper  publicity  against 
the  prosecution,  was  the  opposition  of  fashionable  social 
circles  and  of  the  clubs.  The  graft  defendants  became 
much  in  evidence  at  the  best  clubs  in  the  city.  To  be 
sure,  their  persistent  appearance  all  but  disrupted  some 
of  the  clubs,  members  in  sympathy  with  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law  openly  objecting  to  their  presence.^^^ 

crash  came,  two  Sacramento  Publishing  Companies,  one  with  a 
"The"  and  one  without  a  "The,"  claimed  ownership  of  the  Sacra- 
mento "Union."  A  majority  of  the  stock  of  the  first  company  was 
pledged  to  the  Union  Trust  Company  as  part  collateral  for  a  loan 
of  $175,000;  175,000  shares  of  the  common  stock  of  the  second  com- 
pany and  100,000  shares  of  its  preferred  stock,  together  with  the 
paper's  Associated  Press  franchise,  were  in  the  hands  of  the  suc- 
cessor of  the  London,  Paris  and  American  Bank,  the  Anglo  &  Lon- 
don, Paris  National  Bank,  to  secure  a  balance  of  $16,085.02  due  on 
an  original  loan  of  $30,000. 

But  there  were  further  complications.  The  first  Sacramento 
Publishing  Company,  the  directors  and  officers  of  which  were  the 
directors  and  officers  of  the  second  company,  transferred  the  cor- 
poration's office  building  to  the  second  corporation.  The  second  cor- 
poration thereupon  mortgaged  this  real  estate  to  the  People's  Bank 
of  Sacramento  to  secure  a  second  loan  of  $20,000. 

When  Mr.  I.  W.  Hellman,  Jr.,  manager  of  the  Union  Trust  Com- 
pany— also  one  of  the  prominent  managers  of  the  Hellman  move- 
ment in  local  politics— was  on  the  witness  stand,  at  the  time  of  the 
Calkins  investigation,  he  was  asked  to  whom  he  looked  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  $175,000. 

"To  the  Calkins  Syndicate,"  replied  Mr.  Hellman. 

276  The  presence  of  President  Calhoun  at  an  Olympic  Club  din- 
ner in  July,  1907,  met  with  strong  objection.  Calhoun  was  not  a 
member  of  the  club.  He  had,  it  was  charged,  been  brought  there 
by  one  of  the  employees  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  who 
was  a  member.  His  appearance  led  to  open  protest.  It  was  finally 
arranged  that  objection  should  not  be  made  to  him,  on  condition 
that  he  would  not  attempt  to  make  an  address.  But  the  defense 
claque  had  evidently  planned  otherwise.  A  demonstration  was 
started  for  Calhoun.  He  began  a  speech  which  brought  members 
to  their  feet  in  protest. 

"I  object,"  said  Dr.  Charles  A.  Clinton,  one  of  the  oldest  mem- 
bers of  the  club,  "to  the  presence  here  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  I  pro- 
test against  his  making  a  speech  on  the  ground  that  the  gentleman 
has  been  indicted  by  the  Grand  Jury  for  a  most  heinous  offense; 
that  he  has  been  charged  with  bribing  and  debauching  public  offi- 
cials, and  should  not  be  a  guest  of  the  club  until  he  can  come  with 
clean  hands.  I  do  not  pass  upon  this  man's  innocence  or  guilt, 
but  feel  that  vmtll  his  hands  are  clean  he  should  not  come  to  the 
club." 

The  outcome  was  that,  by  action  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  Dr. 
Clinton  was  expelled  from  the  club.  The  course  was  generally  de- 
nounced. "The  Olympic  Club  of  San  Francisco,"  said  the  Sacra- 
mento Bee,  "has  shamed  itself  in  the  eyes  of  every  decent,  honest, 
manly,  self-respecting  citizen  in  this  State  by  its  recent  act, 
through  its  Board  of  Directors,  in  expelling  Dr.  Charles  A.  Clinton 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  259 

But  in  the  end,  the  defendants  prevailed  and  were  loudly 
apparent  at  the  principal  clubs  of  the  city  even  while 
under  the  inconvenience  of  indictment. 

San  Francisco's  so-called  fashionable  society  was, 
during:  the  graft  trials,  practically  organized  as  an  ad- 
junct of  the  defense.  Those  in  accord  with  the  prosecu- 
tion were  cut  off  visiting  lists.  Some  of  the  non-resident 
indicted  ones  brought  their  families  to  San  Francisco. 
Their  wives  and  daughters  at  once  became  prominent 
in  social  matters.  It  was  the  refinement  of  the  custom 
of  bringing  in  "the  wife  and  innocent  children"  of  the 
defendant  at  a  criminal  trial. 

This  character  of  defense  was  most  effective.     The 


from  membership.  The  offense  of  Dr.  Clinton  was  merely  that  he 
protested,  as  every  other  honorable  member  of  the  Olympic  Club 
should  have  protested,  not  so  much  against  the  plotted  appearance 
In  that  club  at  a  banquet,  of  Patrick  Calhoun,  indicted  for  high 
crimes,  as  against  the  subsequent  effort  on  the  part  of  some  mem- 
bers of  the  Olympic  Club  to  force  Calhoun  to  make  a  speech  and 
become  the  hero  of  the  affair." 

When  the  American  battleship  fleet  visited  San  Francisco  in 
1908,  much  opposition  developed  over  the  efforts  of  upholders  of 
the  defense  to  have  Calhoun  invited  to  the  banquet  given  in  honor 
of  the  visitors.  Calhoun's  representatives  finally  overcame  the 
resistance,  and  Calhoun  was  invited. 

Calhoun's  social  and  other  activities  during  this  period  resulted 
in  much  newspaper  discussion.  "The  action  of  Patrick  Calhoun," 
said  the  Examiner,  "in  appointing  himself,  Thornwell  Mullally  and 
William  Abbott,  all  under  Indictment  on  bribery  charges,  as  dele- 
gates to  the  Industrial  Peace  Conference  caused  such  indignation 
and  protest  on  the  part  of  the  other  delegates  that  a  committee  on 
arrangements  last  evening  demanded  that  Calhoun  withdraw  the 
names  of  himself  and  his  two  subordinates  and  substitute  others." 
Mrs.  Eleanor  Martin  gave  a  dinner  in  honor  of  Congressman  and 
Mrs.  Nicholas  Longworth  on  the  occasion  of  the  visit  of  President 
Roosevelt's  daughter  to  San  Francisco.  Mrs.  Martin  ranked  as 
highest  of  San  Franf^isco's  so-called  social  leaders.  The  alleged 
fact  that  neither  Calhoun  nor  Mullally  was  present  on  that  im- 
portant occasion  was  made  subject  of  much  curious  newspaper 
comment.  The  "social  side"  of  the  graft  defense  not  infrequently 
furnished  saving  comedy  for  an  overstrained  situation.  It  was, 
however,  most  effective  in  breaking  down  the  prosecution.  "So- 
cially" the  defense  had  decidedly  the  better  of  the  situation.  Cal- 
houn, for  example,  became  a  member  of  the  Olympic  Club.  There 
was  a  deal  of  newspaper  protest  at  the  club's  action  in  admitting 
him,  and  defense  of  the  club  and  other  comedy.  But  Calhoun  wore 
the  "win,ged  O"  emblem  of  the  Olympic  Club  on  his  automobile, 
nevertheless. 


26o  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

charming  entertainment  of  those  wives  and  daughters  of 
indicted  magnates  who  engaged  in  the  social  publicity 
campaign  in  the  interests  of  their  troubled  male  relations, 
went  far  toward  building  up  public  opinion  against  their 
prosecutors.  The  supporters  of  the  prosecutors  were 
treated  with  scant  ceremony.  To  be  a  supporter  of  the 
prosecution  was  not  regarded  as  "good  form."  All  in 
all,  the  social  side  was  one  of  the  cleverest  and  most 
effective  features  of  the  publicity  campaign  carried  on 
by  the  graft  defense.^'^^ 

The  boycott  of  those  in  sympathy  with  the  prosecu- 
tion extended  to  the  larger  business  world  as  well  as  to 
exclusive  social  circles.  When,  for  example,  the  Amer- 
ican battleship  fleet  visited  San  Francisco  on  its  tour 
around  the  world  in  1908,  the  committee  appointed  by 
the  Mayor  to  arrange  fitting  reception  and  entertain- 
ment of  its  visitors,  organized  by  making  James  D. 
Phelan,  prominently  associated  with  Mr.  Spreckels  in 
the  Graft  Prosecution,  chairman. 

That  Mr.  Phelan  should  be  made  head  of  the  com- 
mittee, or  even  identified  with  it,  gave  serious  offense  to 
the  large  business  and  financial  interests  that  did  not 
approve   the    prosecution. ^'^^      The   large    interests    thus 

277  One  of  the  most  amusing  experiences  which  the  writer  had 
during  this  period  was  in  listening  to  a  woman,  prominent  in 
Episcopalian  Church  affairs,  as  she  voiced  her  indignation  because 
of  a  slight  put  upon  her  at  an  important  social  event  of  her  church, 
at  which  daughters  of  one  of  the  graft  defendants  had  place  in  the 
receiving  line. 

278  Some  of  the  letters  of  refusal  to  contribute  are  of  curious 
interest.  For  example.  Timothy  Hopkins,  a  capitalist  of  large  af- 
fairs, wrote  curtlv:  "Yours  of  the  4th  in  reference  to  contributions 
for  the  entertainment  of  the  United  States  Fleet  has  been  received. 
I  am  not  contributing.    Yours  truly,  TIMOTHY  HOPKINS." 

E.  E.  Calvin,  for  the  Southern  Pacific,  wrote  "that  under  present 
conditions  we  cannot  afford  to  contribute  money  to  any  purpose 
other  than  charity  or  a  pressing  public  necessity." 

A.  H.  Payson,  for  the  Santa  Fe,  wrote  that  under  his  instruc- 
tions he  "was  not  able  to  make  a  subscription  for  this  purpose  In 
behalf  of  the  Atchison  Company." 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  261 

offended  refused  to  contribute  to  the  reception  fund. 
William  C.  Ralston,  United  States  Sub-Treasurer  at  San 
Francisco,  and  treasurer  of  the  Fleet  Reception  Commit- 
tee, reported  to  the  committee  that  several  large  banks 
and  public  service  corporations  would  not  contribute  to 
the  reception  of  the  fleet  unless  Mr.  Phelan  left  the 
reception  committee.^^^ 

The  committee,  refusing  to  submit  to  this  arrogant 
dictation,  accordingly  proceeded  to  the  entertainment  of 
the  fleet  without  assistance  from  the  anti-prosecution 
financiers  and  institutions.  The  smaller  merchants,  as- 
sisted by  those  banks  and  enterprises  which  had  not  been 
offended  by  the  proceedings  against  the  corrupters  of  the 
municipal  government,  contributed  upwards  of  $75,000. 
The  reception  to  the  fleet  was  thus  carried  to  successful 
conclusion  without  the  assistance  of  the  graft  defense 
element. 

279  Mr.  Ralston,  in  an  interview  printed  In  the  San  Francisco 
Examiner,   September  26,  1908,  said  of  this  incident: 

"The  true  facts  of  the  case  are  that  when  P.  N.  Lilienthal  and 
myself  called  on  many  of  the  banks  and  all  of  the  public  utility 
corporations  they  came  out  boldly  and  stated  that  they  would  not 
give  one  dollar  while  Phelan  was  Chairman  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee, or  connected  with  the  reception  of  the  fleet. 

"Some  of  tlie  banks  that  refused  are  the  Crocker  National  Bank 
and  the  Wells-Fargo  National.  Some  of  the  other  banks  only  gave 
$100  when  they  would  have  given  much  larger  amounts.  They  dis- 
liked Phelan.  Among  the  corporations  were  the  Telephone  Com- 
pany, the  Spring  Valley  Water  Company,  and  the  Gas  and  Electric 
Light  Company.  The  Southern  Pacific  and  Santa  Fe  refused  to 
subscribe  and  it  is  presumed  their  reasons  were  the  same  as  the 
other   corporations. 

"When  I  learned  the  true  situation,"  Mr.  Ralston  went  on,  as  he 
widened  the  moutli  of  tlie  bag  for  the  certain  escape  of  the  cat,  "I 
went  before  the  Executive  Committee,  at  a  meeting  at  whicli  Mr. 
Phelan  was  present,  and  guaranteed  the  sum  of  $25,000  more  if 
Mr.  Phelan  resign  or  step  out.  I  even  went  further  and  said  that 
besides  guaranteeing  $25,000,  I  felt  assured  that  the  sum  of  $50,000 
could  be  easily  collected  if  Mr.  Phelan  would  drop  out.  This  Mr. 
Phelan  refused  to  do.  These  matters  all  came  up  in  executive 
meetings." 

In  this  connection  it  is  Interesting  to  note  that  at  the  1914  elec- 
tion in  California,  Mr.  Phelan  was  elected  to  represent  the  State  in 
the  United  States  Senate,  while  Mr.  Ralston  was  defeated  at  the 
Republican  primaries  for  nomination  for  Governor. 


262  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

In  the  work  of  undermining  the  prosecution,  the  hum- 
bler circles  of  municipal  life  were  not  neglected.  The 
claquer  in  labor  union,  and  wherever  groups  of  laboring 
men  and  women  met,  was  quite  as  active  as  his  prototype 
at  club  and  exclusive  function.  In  labor  circles  the  pros- 
ecution was  described  as  a  movement  to  discredit  labor 
and  to  disrupt  the  unions.  Here,  Rudolph  Spreckels  was 
described  as  the  unrelenting  foe  of  labor  organizations. 
At  club  and  function,  on  the  other  hand,  the  prosecu- 
tion was  condemned  as  agent  of  "labor  organization  and 
anarchy,"  and  Mr.  Spreckels  denounced  as  a  man  who 
had  "gone  back  on  his  class."  In  all  quarters  stories 
were  circulated,  questioning  Spreckels'  motives.  The 
most  persistent  charge  against  him  was  that  he  had 
started  a  street-car  system  of  his  own,  and  had  insti- 
tuted the  graft  prosecution  to  drive  the  United  Rail- 
roads out  of  business.  This  story  was  told  and  retold, 
although  the  purposes  for  which  Mr.  Spreckels  had  con- 
templated engaging  in  the  street-car  business  were  well 
known.-®"  It  was  quite  as  well  known,  too,  that  the 
briberies  alleged  against  officials  of  the  United  Railroads 
were  committed  long  after  the  graft  prosecution  had 
been  inaugurated. 

Heney  ^^^  was  also  made  target  for  criticisms.     His 

280  See  Chapter  III. 

281  President  Calhoun's  denunciation  of  Heney  was  scarcely  con- 
sistent with  the  high  regard  in  which  Heney  was  at  the  opening  of 
the  prosecution,  held  by  the  United  Railroads'  executives  So  well 
did  they  think  of  Heney  that  they  selected  him  to  sit  on  the'  Board 
of  Arbitration  which  met  late  in  1906  to  adjust  differences  between 
the  United  Railroads  and  its  employees.  This  fact  was  given  by 
Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  as  one  of  the  reasons  for  removing  Lang- 
don  from  office,  in  October,  1906,  when  the  Graft  Prosecution  opened. 
Specification  7  of  Gallagher's  order  removing  Langdon  because  of 
the  appointment  of  Heney  reads:  "Specification  7,  That  said  Fran- 
cis J.  Heney  at  and  prior  to  the  time  of  his  appointment  as  assist- 
ant district  attorney  was  the  representative  of  the  corporation  con- 
trolling the  street-car  system  of  said  city  and  county  (The  United 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  263 

whole  life  was  gone  over  in  the  search  for  flaws.  It  was 
discovered  that  in  self-defense  he  had,  years  before,  shot 
a  man  in  Arizona. ^®^  This  was  made  basis  of  a  charge 
that  Heney  had  committed  murder.  The  new  version  of 
the  Arizona  incident  was  fairly  shouted  from  San  Fran- 
cisco housetops. 

Heney  was  denounced  as  a  "special  prosecutor,  a 
human  bloodhound,  engaged  in  hounding  of  men  to  the 
penitentiary."  It  was  charged  against  him  that  he  had 
received  excessive  fees  from  corporations ;  that  he  had 
accepted  fees  from  the  Federal  government  while  acting 
as  deputy  to  the  San  Francisco  District  Attorney,  and 
that  therefore  his  San  Francisco  employment  was  ille- 
gal f^^  that  he  had  been  a  drunkard. 

Railroads),  in  a  certain  dispute  between  said  corporation  and  its 
employees.  That  tlie  appointment  of  said  Heney  to  said  office  will, 
in  regard  to  the  enforcement  of  law  against  said  corporation,  be 
prejudicial  and  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  said  city  and 
county," 

Heney  resigned  his  position  as  arbitrator  in  the  United  Rail- 
roads controversy  soon  after  the  prosecution  opened. 

282  The  graft  defendants  sent  men  to  Arizona  to  have  Heney 
indicted,  charging  murder  of  a  Dr.  Handy.  Years  before,  Heney 
had  taken  the  case  of  Handy's  wife  in  divorce  proceedings,  after 
other  attorneys  had  declined  it  because  of  fear  of  Handy.  Handy 
had  boasted  that  he  would  kill  the  man  who  took  his  wife's  case. 
After  Heney  had  agreed  to  represent  Mrs.  Handy,  Handy  an- 
nounced that  he  would  kill  Heney  with  Heney's  own  gun.  He 
actually  attempted  this,  and  Heney,  in  self-defense,  shot  him. 
Heney  was  exonerated  at  the  time.  When  the  graft  trials  opened, 
first  representatives  of  Ruef,  and  then  representatives  of  the  United 
Railroads  went  to  Arizona  for  the  purpose  of  working  up  this  case 
against  Heney,  and  if  possible  secure  his  indictment  for  murder. 
Ruef's  representatives  even  went  so  far  as  to  attempt  to  secure  the 
services  of  Handy's  son  to  get  Heney  indicted.  Young  Handy  went 
to  Heney,  told  him  what  was  going  on,  and  offered  to  go  to  Arizona 
to  protect  Heney.  But  Heney  declined  to  permit  this  sacrifice. 
Ycung  Handy  expressed  gratitude  for  what  Heney  had  done  for  his 
mother.  Heney's  brother,  Ben  Heney,  with  full  knowledge  of  what 
was  going  on,  watched  the  efforts  of  those  who  were  endeavoring 
to  make  this  case,  long  since  disposed  of,  a  matter  of  embarrass- 
ment to  the  prosecutor.  As  the  graft  defense  investigators  found 
nothing  upon  which  to  base  a  charge  this  move  against  the  graft 
prosecution  failed. 

283  Dean  John  H.  Wigmore  of  the  Northwestern  School  of  Law 
at  Chicago,   author  of  Wigmore  on  Evidence,    made  sharp  reply   to 


264  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

A  most  effective  attack  consisted  in  charging  connec- 
tion of  the  graft  prosecution  with  the  CaHfornia  Safe 
Deposit  and  Trust  Company. 

This  institution  closed  its  doors  during  the  1907 
panic.  It  had  carried  an  enormous  volume  of  deposits. 
Thousands  of  homes  were  affected.  The  California 
Safe  Deposit  and  Trust  Company  was,  as  a  result,  very 
unpopular.  Stories  were  circulated  that  the  company 
had  backed  the  prosecution,  and  had  contributed  funds 
for  its  work.  J.  Dalzell  Brown,  one  of  the  leading 
spirits   of   the   company,   was   also  described   as   one   of 


this  contention.     In  a  letter  to  President  Calhoun,  dated  August  10, 
1909.     Dean  Wigmore  said: 

"Chicago,   87  Lake  Street,  10  August,  1909. 
"Mr.    Patrick   Calhoun,    San   Francisco. 

"Sir: — Recently  there  arrived  in  my  hands  by  mail,  with  no 
sender's  address,  a  pamphlet  of  ninety  pages,  entitled  'Some  Facts 
Regarding  Francis  J.  Heney.'  On  page  12  your  name  appears  as 
a  printed  signature.  I  am  assuming  that  you  caused  the  contents 
to   be  prepared   and  mailed. 

"The  pamphlet  contains  assertions  reflecting  on  the  conduct  of 
Francis  .7.  Heney  and  the  Federal  Department  of  Justice,  in  taking 
part  in  the  prosecution  of  a  criminal  charge  of  bribery  in  the  State 
Court  of  California  against  yourself.  The  pamphlet  contains  no 
defense  of  yourself;  it  does  not  even  mention  your  name,  except 
as  its  signer  and  in  the  title  of  exhibits;  much  less  does  it  allege 
or  attempt  to  show  your  innocence.  It  merely  asks  an  answer  to 
'three  important  constitutional  and  moral  questions'  affecting  Mr. 
Heney  and   the   Department   of  Justice. 

"Before  answering  those  questions,  let  me  say  that  this  does 
not  appear  to  be  the  method  of  an  innocent  man.  The  public  press 
has  made  notorious  the  charge  against  you  and  its  prosecution  by 
Mr.  Heney.  Thoughtful  citizens  everywhere  have  discussed  it. 
Many  (not  including  myself)  had  assumed  that  you  were  guilty. 
You  now  appear  to  have  spent  a  large  sum  to  print  and  circulate 
widely  a  pamphlet  concerning  the  case.  Anyone  would  expect  to 
find  the  pamphlet  devoted  to  showing  your  innocence;  and  thus  to 
removing  unfavorable  opinions  based  on  casual  press  dispatches. 
An  lionest  man,  desiring  to  stand  well  with  honest  fellow-citizens, 
and  possessing  means  to  print,  would  naturally  take  that  course. 
You  do  not.  Your  pamphlet  merely  attacks  the  technical  authority 
of  one  of  the  attorneys  for  the  prosecution,  incidentally  abusing 
two  judges.  This  is  not  the  course  of  an  innocent  man.  It  is  the 
course  of  a  guilty  man  who  desires  to  divert  the  attention  of  the 
tribunal  of  public  opinion.  The  tradition  is  here  fulfilled  of  the 
attorney's  instructions  to  the  barrister  acting  for  his  guilty  client, 
'No  case;  abuse  tiie  opposing  counsel.'  I  am  compelled  now  to 
assume    that    you    have    no    case,    because    all    that   your   expensive 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  265 

the    prosecution's   backers.      It   was   shown   at   the    Cal- 

pamphlet  does  is  to  abuse  one  of  the  counsel  for  the  prosecution. 
Until  now  I  have  supposed  it  proijer  to  suspend  judgment.  I  do 
so   no   longer. 

"And  what  are  your  three  'constitutional  and  moral'  questions. 
— since  you  have  sent  m.e  a  pampiilet  asking  an  answer  to  them? 
I  will  answer  them  frankly. 

"1.  Was  Mr.  Heney's  payment  by  the  Department  of  Justice 
covertly  for  the  California  prosecution  but  nominally  for  other  and 
Federal  services? 

"Answer:  I  do  not  know.  But  I  and  other  honest  citizens  will 
presume  in  favor  of  the  honesty,  in  this  act,  of  a  President,  an 
Attorney-General,  and  an  Assistant  Attorney-General  who  proved 
in  all  other  public  acts  that  they  were  honest  and  courageous  be- 
yond example,  especially  as  against  a  man  like  yourself  who  pub- 
lishes a  pamphlet  based   tla'oughout  on  anonymous  assertions. 

"2.  Can  a  Federal  Assistant  Attorney-General,  under  Federal 
salary,  lawfully  act  at  the  same  time  as  State  Assistant  District 
Attorney? 

"Answer:  As  to  this  'constitutional'  question,  I  leave  this  to 
the  courts,  as  you  should.  As  to  this  'moral'  question,  I  say  that 
it  is  moral  for  any  Federal  officer  to  help  any  State  officer  in  the 
pursuit  of  crime,  and  that  only  guilty  lawbreakers  could  be  im- 
agined   to    desire   the    contrary. 

"3.  Can  a  private  citizen  contribute  money  to  help  the  State's 
prosecuting  officers  in  the  investigation  and  trial  of  a  criminal 
charge? 

"Answer:  He  can;  and  it  is  stupid  even  to  put  the  question. 
Under  the  original  English  jury-system  (of  which  you  received 
the  benefit)  and  until  the  last  century,  the  private  citizen  was 
usually  obliged  to  pay  the  prosecuting  expenses;  for  the  State  did 
not,  and  crime  went  unpunished  otherwise.  If  nowadays,  in  any 
community,  crime  is  again  likely  to  go  unpunished  without  the 
help  of  private  citizens,  there  is  no  reafson  why  we  should  not 
revert  to  the  old  system.  As  for  Mr.  Spreckels  (the  private  citizen 
here  named  by  you),  his  name  should  be  held  in  honor,  and  will 
ever  be,  as  against  anything  your  pamphlet  can  say.  As  for  Mr. 
Heney  and  his  receipt  of  $47,500  officially  and  'large  sums  of  money 
additionally'  from  Mr.  Spreckels,  it  may  be  presumed  that  he 
spent  most  of  it  on  trial  expenses,  and  did  not  keep  it  as  a  per- 
sonal reward.  But  even  if  he  did  so  keep  it,  let  me  register  the 
view  that  he  is  welcome  to  all  this — and  to  more — if  anybody  will 
give  it;  that  no  money  compensation  is  too  high  for  such  rare 
courage;  that  the  moral  courage  displayed  by  him  is  as  much 
entitled  to  h.igh  money  compensation  ns  t'.ie  unprincipled  com- 
mercial skill  displayed  by  yourself — and  this  solely  by  the  economic 
test  of  money  value. — viz.,  demand  and  supply. 

"Apart  from  this,  the  high  sums  said  to  have  been  paid  by  you 
to  Abraham  Ruef  solely  for  his  legal  skill  estop  you  from  ques- 
tioning the  propriety  of  lesser  sums  said  to  have  been  paid  to 
Francis  J.   Heney  for  his  legal  skill. 

"Just  twenty-five  years  ago  I  sat  in  an  upper  room  on  Kearny 
street,  with  five  other  young  men,  and  helped  to  organize  a  Munici- 
pal Reform  League.  Two  or  three  others,  still  living,  will  recall 
the  occasion.     Abraham  Ruef  v/as  one  of  them. 

"Fate  separated  all  of  us  within  a  short  time.  Ruef  went  his 
own  way,— the  way  we  all  know.  It  is  the  memory  of  those  earlier 
days,  in  contrast  with  the  rer^nt  course  of  events  in  my  old  home, 
th.at  has  intereste<l  me  to  give  you  tiiese  answers  to  the  questions 
asked  in  the  pamphlet  you  purport  to  have  sent  me. 

"JOHN   H.   WIGMORE." 


266  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

houn  -^*  trial  that  neither  Brown  nor  his  company  had 
contributed  a  dollar  toward  the  prosecution  fund. 
Nevertheless,  persistent  reports  that  the  prosecution  had 
had  this  support,  unquestionably  had  its  effect  upon  the 
losing  depositors.  Hiram  W.  Johnson  had  acted  as 
Brown's  attorney.  Johnson  had  appeared  as  assistant 
to  the  District  Attorney  at  a  number  of  the  graft  trials. 
Johnson  was  condemned  for  taking  the  case  of  a  crim- 
inal guilty  of  the  offenses  charged  against  Brown. 
Mr.  Johnson's  critics  did  not,  however,  condemn  the 
attorneys  who  had  taken  the  cases  of  the  alleged  bribe- 
givers. 

Another  charge  was  that  the  prosecution  was  hurt- 
ing business ;  that  the  material  prosperity  of  California 
demanded  that  the  proceedings  be  stopped ;  that  capital 
would  not  seek  investment  in  California  until  the  dis- 
turbance caused  by  the  prosecution  had  subsided. 

Every  move  of  the  prosecution  was  made  subject 
of  criticism.  Announcement,  for  example,  that  im- 
munity had  been  given  the  Supervisors  was  received  by 
the  anti-prosecution  press  with  a  storm  of  protest,  and 
used  by  the  pro-defense  claque  most  effectively. 

The  treatment  accorded  Ruef  was  subject  of  con- 
stant objection  and  criticism.  During  the  period  of 
Ruef's  apparent  co-operation  with  the  prosecution,  when 
he  was  in  custody  of  the  elisor,  the  pro-defense  press 
harped  on  the  uselessness  of  the  expense  of  keeping 
Ruef  in  the  luxury  of  a  private  jail.^*^     The  Chronicle 

284  See  Rudolph  Spreckels'  testimony  in  The  People,  etc.,  vs. 
Patriclt  Calhoun. 

285  As  early  as  April  20,  1907,  the  Chronicle  began  its  objection 
to  Ruef's  confinement.  The  Chronicle  on  that  date  said,  in  an  edito- 
rial article: 

"It  appears  that  it  is  costing  the  city  about  $70  a  day  to  keep 


The  Real  Fight  Begins  267 

even  went  so  far  as  to  say  it  would  be  well  if  Ruef 
forfeited  his  bail,  provided  the  bail  were  set  high  enough. 
Ruef  was,  at  the  time,  thought  to  be  a  willing  witness 
for  the  prosecution.  That  the  case  of  The  People 
would  be  weakened  were  he  to  leave  the  State  did  not 
seem  to  appeal  to  the  Chronicle.  Later  on,  when  it 
became  evident  that  Ruef  was  not  assisting  the  prose- 
cution, there  were  outcries  against  the  alleged  cruel 
treatment  that  had  been  imposed  upon  him  during  his 
confinement  in  the  custody  of  the  elisor. 

But  this  potent  and  far-reaching  opposition  did  not 
cause  a  moment's  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  prose- 
cution. The  work  of  bringing  influential  offenders  be- 
fore  trial    juries    went    steadily    on.      As    soon    as    the 


Ruef  In  Jail.  That  expense  should  be  shut  off  and  shut  off  now. 
There  is  no  reason  why  Ruef  should  be  treated  differently  from 
any  other  criminal  who  jumped  his  bail.  Incidentally  the  public  is 
getting  impatient  to  hear  that  the  ?50,000  bail  already  forfeited  has 
been  collected.  If  that  were  in  the  treasury  we  should  be  more 
willing  to  incur  this  large  expense.  The  public  will  very  sharply 
criticise  authorities  who  incur  such  expense  for  the  care  of  Ruef 
without  promptly  collecting  the  forfeited  bail  or  beginning  suit  for 
it.  Perhaps  it  has  already  been  collected  and  the  public  has  not 
heard  of  it. 

"The  city  has  provided  a  jail  and  a  jailer.  Let  him  have  Ruef. 
Of  course,  he  will  'connubiate'  with  him,  but  what  of  it?  The 
Sheriff  will  be  under  the  direction  of  the  Court  and  if,  when  other- 
wise ordered,  he  grants  Ruef  privileges  not  proper,  he  can  himself 
be  put  in  jail,  we  suppose.  We  trust  the  trial  judges  will  not  be 
discouraged  in  their  efforts  to  enforce  respect  to  their  courts.  They 
will  find  the  people  behind  them  who  are  already  sitting  in  critical 
judgment  on  the  legal  refinements  of  the  higher  courts. 

"We  suppose  that  a  criminal  who  has  once  jumped  his  bail  may 
be  kept  in  jail  when  caught.  But  we  see  no  use  of  it.  By  once 
nmning  away  he  has  warranted  the  Court  in  fixing  new  bail  at  such 
a  rate  that  the  public  would  gladly  have  .4t  forfeited.  We  could 
afford  to  pay  something  handsome  to  clear  Ruef  entirely  out  of  the 
coimtry  and  into  Honduras,  and  if  we  could  extort  from  him  a  few 
hundred  thousand  dollars  for  the  privilege  it  would  be  the  best  trade 
we  ever  made.  But  we  do  not  believe  he  would  run  away  If  the  bail 
were  made  right.  But  if  he  is  not  to  be  bailed,  let  him  go  to  jail, 
where  the  total  cost  of  his  keep  will  not  exceed  25  or  30  cents  a  day 
or  whatever  it  is.  And  if  the  Sheriff  is  not  trustworthy — as.  of 
course,  he  is  not — let  Elisor  Biggy  have  a  key  to  a  separate  lock  on 
his  dungeon.  But  there  is  no  sense  in  spending  $70  a  day  for  the 
keep  of  only  one  of  our  municipal  reprobates." 


268  The  Real  Fight  Begins 

Schmitz  extortion  case  had  been  disposed  of,  Louis 
Glass  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph 
Company,  the  first  of  the  indicted  capitalists  to  face  a 
jury,  was  brought  to  trial. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction. 

On  the  day  that  Mayor  Schmitz  was  sentenced  to 
serve  five  years  in  the  penitentiary  for  extortion,  six 
jurors  were  secured  to  try  Louis  Glass,  for  bribery. 

Mr.  Glass  had  been  indicted  with  T.  V.  Halsey  for 
alleged  bribery  transactions  growing  out  of  the  opposi- 
tion of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Com- 
pany to  competition  in  the  San  Francisco  field.  Mr. 
Halsey's  business  was  to  watch,  and,  so  far  as  lay  in  his 
power,  to  block,  such  opposition  telephone  companies  as 
might  seek  entrance  into  San  Francisco. 

Mr,  Glass  was  Mr.  Halsey's  superior.  To  Glass, 
Halsey  reported,  and  from  Glass,  Halsey  took  his  orders. 
Eleven  Supervisors  had  confessed  that  Halsey  had  paid 
them  large  sums  to  oppose  the  granting  of  a  franchise 
to  the  Home  Telephone  Company.  Testimony  given 
before  the  Grand  Jury  had  brought  the  source  of  the 
bribe  money  close  to  Halsey's  superior,  Glass. 

Glass  was  indicted.  The  specific  charge  on  which  he 
was  brought  to  trial  was  that  he  had  given  Supervisor 
Charles  Boxton  a  bribe  of  $5000. 

As  in  all  the  graft  cases,  there  had  been  in  Mr. 
Glass's  defense  technical  attack  upon  the  validity  of 
the  Grand  Jury,  demurrers,  and  other  delaying  moves. 
But  point  by  point  the  prosecution  had  beaten  down 
opposition,  and  by  the  time  the  Schmitz  extortion  case 
had  been  disposed  of,  District  Attorney   Langdon  and 


270       The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction 

his  associates  were  able  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of 
Glass. ^*® 

The  District  Attorney's  office  was  represented  by 
'Heney.  D.  M.  Delmas  and  T.  C.  Coogan  appeared  for 
Mr.  Glass. 

There  were  none  of  the  difficulties  in  securing  the 
jury,  as  were  experienced  in  the  later  graft  trials.  The 
Glass  jury  was  sworn  two  days  after  the  trial  opened. 

Dr.  Boxton  took  the  stand  and  testified,  with  a  minu- 
tia  of  detail,  how  the  bribe  had  been  paid  to  him.  Dr. 
Boxton  was  the  first  of  the  Supervisors  to  testify  be- 
fore trial  jury  and  public,  of  his  corruption.  During 
the  next  year  and  a  half  San  Francisco  was  to  hear  the 
story  repeated  time  after  time  from  the  lips  of  sixteen 
men  who  had  occupied  the  supervisorial  office.  But 
Boxton  was  the  first.  The  spectacle  of  a  man  testifying 
that  he  had  taken  bribes  and  betrayed  the  city  was 
new ;  it  was  astonishing,  thrilling  with  sensation. 

Boxton's  position  was  emphasized  by  his  elevation,  on 
the  day  of  the  beginning  of  his  testimony,  to  the  may- 
oralty office.  He  was  spared  by  neither  prosecution  nor 
defense.  He  was  kept  on  the  witness  stand  for  hours. 
The  prosecution  treated  him  with  coldness,  making  no 
attempt  to  palliate  or  excuse  his  conduct.  The  defense 
harassed  him  with  subtle  ridicule. 

During  the   greater   part   of   Boxton's   examination, 


286  Glass's  attorneys  contended  to  the  last  moment  that  the 
trial  judge  had  no  jurisdiction  to  hear  the  case.  After  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney's  opening  statement  had  been  made,  but  before 
the  taking  of  testimony  had  begun,  Mr.  Delmas  for  the  defense, 
stated  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  counsel  for  the  defendant  the 
court  had  no  jurisdiction  to  try  the  case  on  the  ground  that  the 
Grand  Jury  which  returned  the  purported  indictment  was  an 
illegal  body,  having  no  power  to  sit  as  a  grand  jury  at  the  time 
it   returned  the   indictment. 


The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction       271 

the  Board  of  Supervisors  was  in  session.  As  Mayor  of 
San  Francisco,  Boxton  was  supposed  to  preside  over 
the  Board.  He  was  repeatedly  dragged  from  presiding 
desk  to  witness  stand,  and  hustled  back  from  witness 
stand  to  presiding  desk,  the  whole  city  watching  every 
move. 

"You  were  elected  Mayor  of  this  city?"  inquired 
Delmas  after  one  of  the  witness'  shameful  admissions. 

"Through  no  fault  of  mine,"  replied  Boxton  wearily. 

But  in  spite  of  the  ridicule  and  the  hammering.  Box- 
ton  testified  positively  to  receiving  money  from  Halsey 
to  influence  him  against  casting  his  supervisorial  vote 
to  give  the  Home  Telephone  Company  a  franchise. 
That  Halsey  paid  the  money  was  not  seriously  dis- 
puted. The  question  raised  by  the  defense  was,  did 
the  bribe  money  necessarily  come  through  Halsey 's 
superior,  Glass? 

This  question  the  prosecution  attempted  to  meet. 
Halsey,  it  was  shown,  was  employed  under  Glass  in  an 
inferior  position  and  had  neither  authority  nor  power 
to  use  the  corporation's  funds  without  authorization. 

Mr.  Glass's  position  in  the  company  was  an  impor- 
tant one.  He  had  long  been  vice-president  and  general 
manager.  After  the  death  of  John  I.  Sabin,  president 
of  the  company,  in  October,  1905,  Glass  became  acting- 
president,  a  position  which  he  held  until  Henry  T.  Scott 
assumed  the  duties  of  that  office  late  in  February,  or 
early  in  March,  1906.  The  evidence  went  to  show  that 
at  the  time  of  the  alleged  bribery  transactions.  Glass 
was  serving  as  general  manager  and  acting  president. 
Officials  of  the  company  testified  that  during  Sabin's 
administration    checks    had    been    signed    by    "John    I. 


272       The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction 

Sabin  by  Zimmer,"  or  "E.  J.  Zimmer  for  the  president," 
and  countersigned  by  the  treasurer.  Zimmer  was 
Sabin's  confidential  clerk. 

During  Mr.  Glass's  administration,  after  Mr.  Sabin's 
death,  up  to  the  time  that  Mr.  Scott  took  hold,  the 
checks  were  signed  by  Mr.  Glass,  or  Mr.  Zimmer  for 
Mr.  Glass,  bearing  as  well  the  treasurer's  signature. 

Zimmer  had  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  at 
the  direction  of  Mr.  Glass,  he  had  drawn  large  sums 
in  currency  from  the  banks,  and  given  the  money  to 
Halsey.  Halsey  ^^^  gave  no  vouchers  for  this  money 
which  he  received  from  Zimmer.  The  amounts  were 
accounted  for  at  the  company's  office  by  tags  in  the 
cash  drawer. 

The  testimony  which  Zimmer  had  given  before  the 
Grand  Jury  connected  Glass  directly  with  the  large 
amounts  which  Halsey,  without  giving  vouchers,  had 
received  from  the  telephone  company's  treasury  at  the 
time  of  the  bribery  transactions.  The  prosecution  de- 
pended upon  Zimmer's  testimony  to  solidify  their  case. 
But  when  Zimmer  was  called  to  the  stand,  he  refused 
to  testify. 

Zimmer  based  his  refusal  upon  the  ground  that  in 
his  opinion  the  Grand  Jury  had  indicted  a  number  of 
gentlemen  upon  evidence  which  Mr.  Zimmer  regarded 
as  insufficient,  and  that  he  would  not,  to  protect  his 
own  interests,  testify.-*® 


287  See  Chapter  XIV  and  footnotes  189  and  190,  page  171. 

288  Mr.  Zimmer's  statement  to  the  court  was  as  follows:  "As 
previously  stated,  the  Grand  Jury  has  heretofore  charged  and 
indicted  a  number  of  gentlemen  on  evidence  which  I  have  read, 
and  which  seems  to  be  insufficient,  for  which  reason  I  have  taken 
this  stand  to  protect  my  own  interests;  the  stand  I  refer  to  is  not 
to   testify  in  the  case  which  I  had  intended  and  not  knowing  my 


The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction       273 

The  court  instructed  Mr.  Zimmer  that  his  position 
was  untenable.  The  witness  continued  obdurate.  The 
court  sentenced  him  to  serve  five  days  in  the  county 
jail  for  contempt. 

After  his  five-days'  term  had  expired,  Zimmer  was 
again  called  to  the  stand,  and  again  did  he  refuse  to 
testify;  again  was  he  sentenced  to  serve  in  the  county 
jail,  this  time  for  one  day.  Upon  the  expiration  of 
this  second  sentence,  Zimmer  was  for  the  third  time 
called  to  the  stand,  for  the  third  time  refused  to  testify. 
For  the  third  time  was  he  adjudged  guilty  of  contempt. 
His  third  sentence  was  to  serve  five  days  in  the  county 
jail  and  pay  a  fine  of  $500.  Before  he  had  served  his 
time,  the  Glass  trial  had  been  concluded.  Zimmer, 
therefore,  escaped  testifying  against  his  associate.  Glass. 
But  for  his  refusal,  he  served  eleven  days  in  the  county 
jail  and  paid  a  fine  of  $500.  The  maximum  penalty  for 
the  crime  of  bribery  alleged  against  Glass  was  fourteen 
years  penal  servitude.  Mr.  Zimmer  thus  served  fewer 
days  than  Mr.  Glass  might  have  been  sentenced  to 
serve  years  had  he  been  convicted.  The  testimony 
which  Zimmer  "®^  gave  before  the  Grand  Jury,  was  not 
presented  to  the  trial  jury. 

Nevertheless,  the  prosecution  considered  that  it  had 
made  out  a  strong  case,  but  Mr.  Heney  and  his  asso- 
cates  had  reckoned  without  D.  M.  Delmas,  Glass's 
chief  counsel.     The  defense  introduced  no  evidence,  but 

rights  in  the  matter.  I  wns  sworn,  though  my  intention  was  not 
to  be  sworn."  Zimmer  positively  refused  to  place  his  declination 
on  the  ground  that  his  testimony  might  tend  to  subject  him  to 
prosecution. 

-S9  Zimmer  was  later  tried  before  a  Justice  of  Peace  for  con- 
tempt, found  guilty  and  sentenced  to  three  months  in  the  county 
jail.     He  appealed  to  the  higher  courts. 


274       The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction 

Delmas,  in  a  masterful  argument,  raised  the  question 
of  reasonable  doubt.  He  insisted  that  Glass  had  not 
necessarily  given  the  money  to  Halsey.  He  argued 
that  several  others  of  the  officials  of  the  company  could 
have  authorized  the  transaction.  By  an  elaborate  chain 
of  reasoning,  for  example,  Delmas  insisted  that  if  the 
money  had  been  given  Halsey  at  all.  President  Henry 
T.  Scott  "^°  could  have  provided  for  it. 

290  Scott  had  been  elected  President  before  the  alleged  bribery 
transactions,  but  had  left  soon  after  for  the  East.  The  Prosecu- 
tion held  that  Scott  did  not  assume  his  duties  as  president  until 
after  his  return  from  the  East,  when  the  alleged  briberies  had  been 
completed.  Delmas  concluded  his  argument  on  Scott's  possible 
responsibility  as  follows: 

"And  then  you  are  called  again  further  on  in  this  same  process 
of  elimination.  'We  expect  to  prove  to  you  that  Halsey  had  no 
power  to  expend  moneys  without  a  voucher,  and  that  no  person 
at  that  time  in  the  Telephone  Company  had  any  power  to  expend 
money  without  the  approval  of  the  executive  Board  of  Directors, 
except  Glass,  and  Scott,  who  was  away.'  Scott  had  gone,  we  were 
told,  on  the  18th  or  19th.  These  transactions  took  place  on  the 
22d,  2.3d  and  24th.  Scott  could  not  have  authorized  them  from  the 
simple  fact  that  Scott  was  then  in  the  East,  and  he  was  not  here 
in  San  Francisco  to  direct  or  authorize  the  management  of  the 
affairs  of  this  corporation.  A  true  elimination,  gentlemen,  if  the 
facts  were  true,  but  the  facts  are  not  true.  Mr.  Scott  did  not 
leave  for  the  East — bear  this  in  mind — Mr.  Scott  did  not  leave  for 
the  East  until  all  these  transactions  were  closed;  he  did  not  leave 
until  the  27th  of  February  when  the  last  of  these  checks  had  been 
paid.  Who  drew  it?  Scott  himself.  I  challenge  contradiction. 
The  Assistant  District  Attorney  told  you  on  the  first  day  that  he 
addressed  you  that  Scott  left  on  the  18th  or  19th.  Did  he  know 
that  Scott  did  not  leave  until  the  27th?  Did  he?  If  he  did,  then 
there  are  no  words  that  would  apply  to  the  deception  that  was 
sought  to  be  practiced  upon  you,  and  I  do  not  charge  any  such 
deception.  Had  Mr.  Scott  informed  the  District  Attorney  that  he 
left  on  the  18th  or  19th?  I  do  not  know.  There  is  no  evidence 
before  you  that  he  had.  How,  then,  did  he  get  the  idea  which  he 
made  to  you  under  the  oatli  of  his  office  as  District  Attorney  that 
Scott  left  on  the  18th  or  19th,  when  in  point  of  fact  Scott  did  not 
leave  until  the  27th?  He  came  back  from  Portland  on  Monday  or 
Tuesday  of  the  preceding  week.  He  was  here  during  the  whole  of 
these  transactions;  he  remained  until  the  last  check  liad  been  paid. 
He  remained  until  the  ordinance  had  been  passed  on  the  26th  of 
February,  and  left  the  defeated  camp  on  the  next  day.  How,  then, 
upon  that  evidence,  is  Scott  eliminated  from  this  transaction? 
And  I  do  not  want  you  to  understand  that  I  am  charging  Mr.  Scott 
with  crime.  That  is  no  part  of  my  business.  It  is  no  part  of  my 
offlce.  I  am  assuming,  upon  the  theory  of  this  prosecution,  that 
a  crime  was  committed,  and  I  say  you,  yourselves,  Mr.  District 
Attorney  and  your  attendants,  have  undertaken  by  the  process  of 
elimination  which  you  have  selected,  to  show  us  that  Mr.  Scott 
could  not  have  committed  this  crime.  It  is  sufficient  for  us  to 
show  you  that  he  could  without  charging  that  he  did." 


The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction       275 

The  jury,  after  being-  out  forty-seven  hours,  failed 
to  agree.  At  the  final  ballot  it  stood  seven  for  con- 
viction and  five  for  acquittal.  That  Delmas's  argu- 
ment had  strong  influence  upon  those  who  voted  for 
acquittal  was  indicated  by  their  published  interviews. 
If  these  statements  are  to  be  credited,  Glass  escaped 
conviction  because  a  number  of  the  jurors  held  to  the 
opinion  that  some  telephone  company  official  other 
than  Glass  could  have  authorized  the  passing  of  the 
bribe  money.-^^ 

As  soon  as  the  prosecution  could  bring  Glass  to  sec- 
ond trial,  impaneling  of  the  jury  began. '^^  Glass,  at 
this  second  trial,  was  tried   for  the  alleged  bribery  of 


291  The  following  are  taken  from  interviews  with  the  several 
jurors  which  appeared  in   the  Examiner  of  July  29,   1907: 

Juror  Jacob  Wertheimer — "I  voted  as  I  did  (for  acquittal)  be- 
cause there  was  a  reasonable  doubt  in  my  mind  as  to  whether  or 
not  Glass  had  authorized  the  giving  of  the  money.  There  were  too 
many  others  that  might  have  been  the  ones." 

Juror  Charles  P.  Fonda — "I  voted  not  guilty.  It  was  simply  a 
question  of  whether  Glass  paid  over  this  money  as  charged.  Five 
of  us  did  not  believe  that  the  Prosecution  produced  sufficiently 
convincing  evidence  to  find  the  defendant  guilty." 

Juror  Michael  C.  Samuels — "The  evidence  did  not  link  Glass  up. 
So  far  as  the  bribery  went,  it  might  have  been  done  by  another 
official  of  the  company  than  Glass." 

Juror  Hugo  Schnessel — "There  was  always  something  lacking  in 
the  evidence  to  convince  me  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt  of  the 
defendant's  guilt.  It  seemed  to  me  that  possibly  some  one  else 
other  than  Glass  might  have  paid  over  the  money." 

292  Of  the  delaying  tactics  in  the  Glass  case,  The  San  Francisco 
Call  in  its  issue  of  August  14,  1907,  said: 

"Anything  to  delay  trial  and  judgment  is  the  policy  of  the 
accused  bribe  givers.  Every  day's  proceedings  in  the  retrial  of 
Glass  provides  ample  proof  to  convince  the  most  skeptical  citizen 
that  the  last  thing  desired  by  the  men  charged  with  debauching 
the  boodle  Board  of  Supervisors  is  prompt  determination  of  the 
issues  on  their  merits,  and  every  pettifogging  move  for  delay,  every 
cunning  attempt  to  betray  the  court  into  technical  error  is  confes- 
sion of  a  case  too  weak  to  be  given  to  a  fair  jury  on  a  plain  show- 
ing of  the  facts.  The  attitude  of  the  lawyers  for  Glass  is  sufficient 
to  indicate  that  he  needs  lawyers  of  their  peculiar  expertness — 
'distinguished  attorneys,'  Heney  calls  them — 'distinguished  for  their 
ability  to  defeat  justice.' 

"Judge  Lawlor's  unhesitating  denial  of  a  motion  to  permit  the 


276       The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction 

Supervisor  Lonergan.  The  trial  was  in  many  particu- 
lars a  repetition  of  the  first.  Again,  there  was  no  seri- 
out  attempt  to  dispute  that  Halsey  had  paid  Lonergan 
the  bribe  money.  Zimmer  again  refused  to  testify 
against  his  superior,  and  was  again  committed  for  con- 
tempt. But  the  prosecution  was  careful  at  the  second 
trial  to  show  beyond  the  possibility  of  the  question  of 
a  doubt  that  neither  President  Henry  T.  Scott,  nor  any 
other  official  of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  Company, 
other  than  Glass,  could  have  authorized  the  payment  of 
the  bribe  money. 

By  the  minute  books  of  the  corporation,  the  prosecu- 
tion showed  that  checks  drawn  by  the  corporation  on 
San  Francisco  banks  were  to  be  signed  "by  the  assist- 
ant treasurer  or  his  deputy,  and  by  the  president,  or 
his  private  secretary,  E.  J.  Zimmer,  for  him,  or  by  the 
general  manager."     As  for  Mr.  Scott,  the  prosecution 


lawyers  for  Glass  to  shift  their  ground  in  the  midst  of  the  impanel- 
ing of  the  jury  and  hark  back  to  an  attack  on  the  validity  of  the 
indictments,  and  his  sharp  reprimand  to  Attorney  Coogan  for  his 
method  of  misleading  talesmen  by  adroitly  framed  questions,  ought 
to  expedite  this  trial.  Lawlor  has  a  reputation  for  dealing  sternly 
with  legal  tricksters  and  for  compelling  counsel  in  the  cases  that  he 
hears  to  get  down  to  business  and  keep  at  it.  At  the  same  time 
his  record  on  the  bench  is  that  of  a  just  judge  and  always  im- 
partial. It  is  because  he  is  impartial  and  stern  that  crooked  law- 
yers, with  crooked  clients,  deem  it  'hard  luck'  when  their  cases 
are  assigned  to  Lawlor. 

"Now  Judge  Lawlor  has  a  rare  opportunity  to  prove  anew  his 
worth  as  a  jurist.  He  will  please  a  patient  and  long  suffering 
public  and  will  satisfy  the  ends  of  the  justice  which  he  administers 
when  he  makes  the  lawyers  quit  trifling  and  forces  them  to  let 
the  trial  go  on.  We  may  expect  to  see  the  trial  inade  as  tedious 
and  as  costly  in  time  and  money  as  high  priced  counselors  can 
arrange.  It  is  all  part  of  the  game — tire  out  the  public,  the  jury 
and  the  prosecution;  delay  is  the  safest  course  for  the  man  accused 
against  whom  the  people's  case  is  strong.  But  we  may  also  expect 
to  see  Judge  Lawlor  trimming  the  matter  of  technicalities  and 
pressing  it  to  a  conclusion.  It  was  because  the  people  had  come  to 
expect  such  things  from  Judge  Lawlor  that  they  re-elected  him, 
when  all  the  machines  of  municipal  corruption  were  grinding 
against  him." 


The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction       277 

showed  by  the  testimony  of  Assistant  Treasurer  Ea- 
ton -^^  of  the  telephone  company  that  the  corporation 
did  not  notify  the  banks  to  honor  President  Scott's  sig- 
nature until  February  27,  which  was  after  the  alleged 
bribery  of  Supervisor  Lonergan  had  been  consum- 
mated. 

The  jury,  after  being  out  less  than  a  half  hour, 
brought  in  a  verdict  of  gtiilty. 

Pending  his  appeal  to  the  Appellate  Court,  Glass 
was  confined  in  the  county  jail. 

Of  the  Pacific  States  Telephone  bribing  charges, 
those  against  T.  V.  Halsey  remained  to  be  disposed  of. 

Even  while  the  second  Glass  trial  was  under  way, 
Halsey's  trial  for  the  bribery  of  Supervisor  Lonergan 
was  begun.  There  had  been  the  same  delaying  tactics 
to  ward  off  appearance  before  a  jury  which  had  char- 
acterized the  other  graft  cases.  The  impaneling  of  the 
trial  jury  was,  however,  finally  undertaken.  But  the 
proceedings  were  suddenly  brought  to  a  close.  Halsey, 
after  eight  jurors  had  been  secured  to  try  him,  was 
stricken  with  appendicitis. 

On  this  showing,  his  trial  was  postponed.  Later 
on,  Mr.  Halsey  was  threatened  with  tuberculosis,  which 

293  Eaton  testified  at  the  second  Glass  trial  as  follows:  "Mr. 
Scott  did  not  sign  any  checks  between  February  8,  1906,  and  the 
latter  part  of  March,  1906,  for  the  company;  not  to  my  knowledge. 
Notices  were  sent  out  by  me  to  the  different  banks  in  regard  to  the 
signatures  that  could  be  accepted  upon  checks  after  Mr.  Scott  was 
elected  president.  They  were  sent  on  the  27tli  of  February,  1906,  to 
all  the  San  Francisco  banks  that  we  had  an  account  with." 

Eaton  testified  further  that  the  day  the  banks  were  notified, 
Mr.  Scott  went  East.  Mr.  Scott  could,  Eaton  said,  previous  to  that 
date,  have  signed  cliecks,  but  up  to  that  time  they  would  not  have 
been  honored  at  the  banks.  Halsey,  in  the  Mills  Building,  gave  the 
Supervisors,  of  whom  Lonergan  was  one,  their  bribe  money  not 
later  than  February  26.  Supervisor  Lonergan  testified  that  to  the 
best  of  his  recollection  he  had  been  paid  by  Halsey  some  time 
between  February  14  and  February  20. 


278       The  Glass  Trials  and  Conviction 

further  delayed  proceedings  against  him.  Until  after 
the  defeat  of  the  Graft  Prosecution  in  1909,  Mr.  Hal- 
sey's  health  did  not  permit  of  his  being  tried.  His 
trials  under  the  new  administration  of  the  District  At- 
torney's office,  resulted  in  acquittals. 

Mr.  Halsey,  in  August,  1913,  still  survives  both  the 
appendicitis  attack  and  the  threatened  tuberculosis. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals. 

The  conviction  of  Glass,  following  immediately  upon 
the  overthrow  of  the  Schniitz-Ruef  municipal  adminis- 
tration, and  coupled  with  the  pitiful  position  in  which, 
all  recognized,  Halsey  would  find  himself  before  a  jury, 
stirred  the  graft  defense  to  astonishing  activity.  Al- 
though it  developed  later  that  the  defendants  had  had 
their  agents  at  work  even  before  the  bringing  of  indict- 
ments,"''* little  was  suspected  of  the  extent  of  their 
labors  until  after  the  Glass  trials.  During  the  trials 
of  General  Tirey  L.  Ford,  who  followed  Glass  before 
trial  jurors,  however,  the  work  of  the  defendants' 
agents  and  their  methods  became  notorious.  From  the 
opening  of  the  Ford  trials,  the  representatives  of  the 
various  graft  defendants  who  congregated  in  the  court- 
room ranged  in  social  and  professional  standing  from 
the  highest  priced  lawyers  of  the  character  of  Alexan- 
der    King,     President     Calhoun's     law     partner,     down 

294  John  Helms,  a  detective,  testified  at  the  trial  of  Patrick  Cal- 
houn that  he  had  been  employed  by  the  United  Railroads  as  early 
as  May  3,  1907;  that  his  duties  consisted  of  "mostly  shadow  work, 
watching'  out  for  things  being  done  by  the  prosecution";  that 
Patrick  Calhoun  had  himself  authorized  him  (Helms)  to  employ 
men  to  follow  Burns  on  motorcycles.  Later  on  automobiles  were 
substituted  for  the  motorcycles. 

If  Helms's  employment  began  on  May  3,  as  he  testified,  the 
L'nitcd  Railroads  was  preparing  for  its  defense  at  least  three  weeks 
before  Indictments  were  brought  against  its  officials.  The  extent 
of  that  corporation's  defense,  or  the  details  of  it,  are  not  known  to 
those  outside  the  corporation.  At  the  Calhoun  trial  the  Prosecu- 
tion accounted  for  every  dollar  spent  in  the  operations  against  the 
Schmitz-Ruef  regime.  The  attornej's  representing  the  United  Rail- 
roads were  invited  to  make  as  frank  statement  of  the  expendi- 
tures made  by  the  defense,  but  they  declined. 


280        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

through  layers  of  the  typical,  criminal  lawyer  of  the 
Earl  Rogers-Porter  Ashe  -^^  grade,  to  characters  of 
the  type  of  Harry  Lorenstzen,^*"^  notoriously  known 
throughout  Central  California  as  the  "Banjo-Eyed  Kid," 
and  Dave  Nagle,  the  gun-fighter,  who  numbered  among 
his  accomplishments  the  slaying  of  Judge  Terry.  Nor 
were  the  defending  corporations  alone  represented. 
The  Southern  Pacific,  although  none  of  its  officials 
were  under  indictment,  had  men  at  work  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  defense.-'*^ 

With  such  motley  array  of  attorneys,  detectives,  gun- 
fighters  and  agents.  District  Attorney  Langdon  and  his 
associates  contended  until,  what  was  practically  the  end- 
ing of  the  graft  prosecution,  the  defeat  of  Heney  for 
District  Attorney  at  the   municipal  election   of   1909. 

Ford  had  been   indicted   for  his  alleged  part  in  the 

295  Ashe  participated  in  the  first  Ford  trials.  At  the  time  of  the 
later  trials  he  was  involved  in  the  scandal  of  the  alleged  kidnaping 
of  Fremont  Older. 

296  In  referring  to  the  men  and  women  employed  by  the  graft 
defense.  The  Call,  in  an  editorial  article,  in  its  issue  of  September 
26,  said: 

"The  retinue  of  the  trolley  magnates,  as  exhibited  in  the  Ford 
case,  makes  a  remarkable  picture.  Behind  the  expert  lawyers  of 
last  resort  troops  a  motley  train  of  gun  fighters,  professional  plug- 
uglies,  decoys,  disreputable  'detectives,'  thugs,  women  of  the  half 
world  and  the  wolfish  pack  of  gutter  journalism.  It  must  be,  indeed, 
a  hard  case  that  needs  such  bolstering. 

"How  will  Mr.  Calhoun  square  with  his  protestations  of  high- 
mindedness  the  presence  and  the  efforts  in  his  behalf  of  such 
creatures  of  the  sluins  and  stews  as  'Bogie'  O'Donnell  and  'The 
Banjo  Eyed  Kid'?  Are  these  and  the  others  of  their  kidney  labor- 
ing in  the  same  behalf  as  friends  and  sympathizers  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
or  merely  as  his  hired  men?" 

297  At  the  Ford  trial.  Supervisor  Lonergan  had  testified  that  he 
had  been  fo!lowed  during  a  recess  of  the  court.  The  following  tes- 
timony followed: 

"Q.  Was  that  Mr.  Melrose,  a  detective  of  the  Southern  Pacific, 
who  is  sitting  there?    A.     I  don't  know  Mr.  Melrose. 

"Q.  Is  he  the  gentleman  sitting  immediately  back  of  Mr.  Ford? 
A.     That  is  the  gentleman;   that  is  him. 

"Q.  He  was  following  you  around  during  the  noon  hour?  A. 
Yes,   sir. 

"Q.  Don't  you  know  he  is  a  detective  of  the  Southern  Pacific? 
A.     I  don't  know  anything  about  the  gentleman." 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acvquittals        281 

bribery  of  the  Supervisors  by  the  United  Railroads  to 
secure  its  over-head  trolley  permit.  At  his  first  trial, 
Ford  answered  to  the  charge  of  bribing  former  Super- 
visor Lonergan.  Lonergan  had  not  been  long  on  the 
stand  before  the  defense  demonstrated  the  astonishing 
effectiveness  of  the  work  of  its  agents. 

Earl  Rogers,  for  the  defendant,  on  cross-examina- 
tion, presented  a  paper  signed  by  Lonergan  within  the 
month,  in  which  Lonergan  set  forth  that  when  he  voted 
for  the  trolley  permit  he  had  not  been  promised,  nor 
did  he  understand,  there  would  be  any  monetary  con- 
sideration allowed  him — nor  any  other  member  of  the 
board — for  voting  in  favor  of  the  measure. 

Lonergan  had  testified  on  direct  examination  that 
some  time  prior  to  the  granting  of  the  permit,  Super- 
visor Wilson  had  brought  word  to  him  there  would  be 
$8000  for  him  in  the  passing  of  the  trolley  ordinance. 
Later  Wilson  had  told  him  that  the  amount  would  be 
$4000  only.  This  amount,  Lonergan  testified,  Galla- 
gher had  paid  him.  Lonergan's  statement,  signed  a 
few  days  before  the  opening  of  the  trial,  to  the  effect 
that  when  he  voted  to  grant  the  United  Railroads  its 
trolley  permit  no  monetary  consideration  had  been 
promised  him,  came  as  a  surprise  to  the  prosecution. 

The  story,  of  the  manner  in  which  the  paper  came  to 
be  in  Rogers's  possession,  however,  was  quite  as  sensa- 
tional as  the  statement  itself.  Lonergan,  the  driver  of 
a  bakery  wagon,  confronted  by  the  keenest  practition- 
ers at  the  California  bar,  harassed  and  confused,  stam- 
mered out  explanation  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
been  induced  to  sign  the  paper  in  Rogers's  hands. 


282        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

Long  before  he  had  signed  it,  one  Borland  had  se- 
cured introduction  to  him.  Borland  had  represented 
himself  to  be  a  magazine  writer,  who  held  that  the 
ousted  Supervisors  had  been  misused.  Borland  stated 
that  his  purpose  was  to  set  the  Supervisors  right  in 
the  East.  He  represented  that  he  was  to  prepare  an 
article  on  the  San  Francisco  graft  situation  from  an 
independent,  unbiased  standpoint.  Borland  made  him- 
self very  agreeable  to  Lonergan.  He  took  the  unhappy 
fellow  to  lunch.  He  gave  him  and  members  of  his 
family  automobile  trips  and  expensive  dinners.  Loner- 
gan finally  signed  the  statement  which  the  agreeable 
"magazine  writer"  was  to  use  in  his  behalf,  and  with 
which  the  graft  defense  ^^^  confronted  him  on  the  wit- 
ness stand. 

The  statement  which  Lonergan  had  signed  was  a 
rambling  account  of  conditions  in  San  Francisco,  the 
one  pertinent  paragraph  touching  upon  the  United 
Railroads  graft  being  buried  in  a  multitude  of  words. 

"And  you  intended  to  say  to  all  the  readers  of  the 
magazine  what  you  set  forth  over  your  signature 
there?"  demanded  General  Ford's  attorney. 

"Yes,"  replied  Lonergan,  weakly,  "but  when  I  made 
that  statement  I  was  not  under  oath." 

298  The  Call,  in  its  issue  of  September  26,  1907,  stated  in  explan- 
ation of  how  the  graft  defense  had  come  by  the  statement  Lonergan 
had  made  to  Borland  that:  "After  court  adjourned  (September  25) 
Attorney  Rogers  offered  an  explanation  for  Walter  Borland,  the  man 
who  was  charged  by  the  prosecution  with  having  attempted  to  kid- 
nap Lonergan.  Rogers's  story  differed  from  that  told  by  Borland. 
Rogers  stated  that  Borland  was  not  a  detective,  but  was  in  charge 
of  a  hospital  in  Chicago.  He  came  to  San  Francisco,  where  he  met 
Luther  Brown,  an  associate  of  Rogers.  Brown  and  Borland  were 
old  friends  and  the  former  induced  Borland  to  get  statements  from 
the  Supervisors  for  him.  Borland  did  this.  Rogers  says  he  has 
statements  from  all  the  Supervisors  with  the  exception  of  Galla- 
gher." 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        283 

Then  Lonergan  was  confronted  with  the  affidavit 
which  he  had  signed  at  the  opening  of  the  Graft  Pros- 
ecution when  Langdon  was  fighting  against  Ruef, 
Acting  Mayor  Gallagher  and  the  Schmitz-Ruef  Super- 
visors to  keep  himself  in  the  office  of  District  Attorney 
and  Ruef  out.  In  that  affidavit  Lonergan  set  forth 
that  he  had  "never  committed  a  felony  of  any  kind 
or  character,"  and  had  "never  been  a  party  thereto."'®® 

"I  didn't  read  that  paper  at  the  time  I  signed  it," 
faltered  the  miserable  witness.  "I  did  not  consider  I 
was  committing  a  crime  when  I  signed  that  document." 

'Tf  it  be  a  crime  to  have  me  sign  that,"  he  continued 
in  answer  to  General  Ford's  attorney's  merciless  ham- 
mering, "then  I  must  have   (committed  a  felony)." 

Then  on  re-direct  examination  Lonergan  testified  as 
to  how  he  had  come  to  sign  the  affidavit.  George  B. 
Keane,  clerk  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  Ruef's  right- 
hand  man,  secretary  of  the  Sunday-night  caucuses,  had, 
Lonergan  testified,  said  to  him,  "Tom,  there  is  a  docu- 
ment across  the  street  there  for  you  to  go  over  and 
sign.  All  the  boys  are  signing  it."  Lonergan  testified 
that  he  had  gone  over  and  signed  it.  "I  am  almost 
sure,"  Lonergan  continued,  "that  some  of  them  said  to 


299  Heney  states  in  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  People 
vs.  Patrick  Calhoun  et  als..  No.  823,  that  he  had  been  informed 
that  the  reason  given  by  Ruef  for  securing  the  signatures  of 
tlie  Supervisors  to  this  affidavit  was  to  find  out  which,  if  any 
of  them,  had  confessed,  upon  tlie  theory  that  any  one  of  them 
who  had  confessed  would  refuse  to  sign  an  affidavit,  and  upon 
the  further  theory  that  if  such  a  confessing  member  did  sign  the 
affidavit,  he  would  thus  be  making  a  contradictory  statement 
under  oath,  which  could  thus  be  further  used  against  him  by 
Ruef   or   Gallagher,    upon    the    trial    of   either   of   them. 

But  whatever  Ruef's  far-seeing  motive,  this  affidavit  which 
he,  through  Keane,  induced  the  Supervisors  to  sign,  was  used 
by  the  attorneys  for  the  defense  at  the  graft  trials  to  show  con- 
tradictory statements  of  the  confessing  Supervisors. 


284        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

me  that  it  was  a  matter  of  form,  merely  eulogizing 
the  board." 

"When  proper  inducements  or  circumstances  occur," 
sneered  General  Ford's  attorney,  "you  will  testify  false- 
ly concerning  your  offenses." 

"I  will  not  testify  falsely  on  this  stand,"  replied  the 
unhappy  witness,  "to  whatever  has  happened  during 
my  term  as  Supervisor." 

But  complicated  as  the  position  in  which  the  prose- 
cution found  its  principal  witness,  it  might  have  been 
more  complicated  had  all  the  plans  of  the  agents  for 
the  defense  been  carried  out. 

On  the  night  before  Lonergan  was  to  take  the  stand 
against  Ford,  Borland,  the  alleged  magazine  writer, 
called  him  up  by  telephone  and  invited  him  "to  make 
a  night  of  it."  Borland  stated  two  women  would 
accompany  them.  Before  accepting  the  invitation,  Lon- 
ergan notified  Betective  Burns.  Burns  instructed  him 
not  to  go  on  the  trip,  but  to  meet  Borland  and  to  take 
Mrs.  Lonergan  with  him.  Lonergan,  with  his  wife, 
accordingly  met  Borland  and  the  two  women  at  the 
appointed  place.  Borland  expressed  his  chagrin  when 
he  found  Lonergan  not  alone. 

"He  said,"  Lonergan  testified,  "he  was  sorry  I  was 
not  alone ;  two  nice  young  ladies  were  there." 

Lonergan's  testimony  of  Borland's  dismay  when  the 
detective  found  that  Mrs.  Lonergan  accompanied  her 
husband,  was  received  v/ith  amusement.  The  one-time 
Supervisor  went  on  no  automobile  ride  that  evening. 
Thus  tamely  ended  what  the  prosecution  insisted  was 
a  plot  to  kidnap,  or  at  least  compromise,  Lonergan  on 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        285 

the  eve  of  his  appearance  as  a  witness  against  General 
Ford.3°o 

Out  of  this  attempt  to  involve  Lonergan,  grew  the 
scarcely  less  astonishing  kidnaping  of  Fremont  Older, 
managing  editor  of  the  San  Francisco  Bulletin. 

Among  those  alleged  to  have  participated  in  the 
Lonergan  affair  was  an  employe  of  the  graft  defense  by 
the  name  of  Brown.  The  defense  had  at  the  time  two 
employes  of  that  name.  "Luther"  and  "J.  C,"  the  lat- 
ter of  whom  is  alleged  to  have  been  the  one  who  co- 
operated with  Borland  in  his  attempt  upon  Lonergan. 
The  Bulletin,  in  its  account  of  the  affair,  confounded 
Luther  with  J.  C.  Brown.  Based  on  the  Bulletin's 
allegations  against  Luther  Brown,  warrants  were  sworn 
out  at  Los  Angeles,  charging  Managing  Editor  Older 
with  criminal  libel.  The  manner  of  serving  these  Los 
Angeles  warrants  was  characteristic  of  the  times. 

Late  in  the  afternoon  of  September  27,  Older,  while 
at  Heney's  ofifice,  received  a  telephone  message  that  he 
was  wanted  at  a  prominent  hotel.  As  he  approached 
the  hotel  in  response  to  the  message,  he  was  stopped 
by  a  number  of  men  who  claimed  to  be  peace  officers 
from   Los   Angeles.     These  displayed   the   warrant,   and 


son  The  San  Francisco  Call,  in  its?  issue  of  September  25,  1907, 
In  commenting  on  Lonergan's  testimony,  says:  "Wtiile  Lonergan's 
narrative  tells  a  portion  of  the  story,  it  is  not  all.  In  anotlier 
automobile  were  Detective  TjUther  Brown  and  the  'Banjo-Eyed 
Kid'  of  the  United  Railroads.  They  followed  close  on  the  heels 
of  the  auto  occupied  by  Detective  Dorland.  Both  machines  sped 
to  a  resort  near  the  park,  where  a  meeting  place  had  been 
arranged  and  where  Lonergan  was  to  be  turned  ovc'r  to  the 
custody  of  the  'Banjo-Eyed  Kid.'  The  rest  was  to  be  left  to 
the  Kid.  If  the  plan  had  carried  there  would  have  been  no 
Lonergan  at  the  trial  yesterday,  the  defense  would  have  flashed 
the  statement  secured  by  Dorland  and  set  up  the  cry  that  the 
entire  prosecution  of  the  United  Railroads  was  a  plot  set  on  foot 
by  Rudolph  Spreckels." 


286        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

hustled  Older  into  an  automobile.  Older  demanded 
that  he  be  taken  before  a  local  court.  His  captors 
promised  him  he  should  be.  But  instead  they  headed 
the  machine  for  Redwood  City,  a  town  some  twenty 
miles  south  of  San  Francisco  on  the  line  of  the  South- 
ern Pacific.  When  Older  protested  a  revolver  was 
pressed  against  his  side,  and  he  was  ordered  to  keep 
silent. 

At  Redwood  City,  Older  was  put  on  board  a  Los 
Angeles  train.  On  the  train  were  R.  Porter  Ashe  and 
Luther  Brown.  Older  was  not  permitted  to  communi- 
cate with  his  friends  nor  with  the  passengers,  but  was 
confined  in  a  stateroom  which  his  captors  had  secured.^"^ 

In  the  meantime,  the  entire  police  force  of  San 
Francisco  was  scouring  the  city  for  the  missing  man. 
There  had  been  rumors  that  those  prominent  in  the 
prosecution,  Older  among  them,  were  to  be  made  away 
with.  Older's  unaccountable  disappearance  tended  to 
confirm  these  rumors.  His  alarmed  friends  were  pre- 
pared to  act  promptly  when  word  finally  reached  them 
that  Older  was  on  the  southbound  train. 

The  train  was  due  to  reach  Santa  Barbara  early  the 
following  morning.  Arrangements  were  accordingly 
made  to  rescue  Older  at  that  point.  When  the  train 
arrived  there,  deputy  sheriffs  were  awaiting  its  arrival. 
Older  was  taken  into  court  under  habeas  corpus  pro- 
ceedings. His  release  followed,^'^^  another  sensation  of 
the  graft  defense  thereby  coming  to  sorry  ending.^°- 

301  Several  who  participated  In  this  afEalr  were  later  Indicted  for 
kidnaping.     There  were  no  convictions. 

302  Burns  In  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case  of  The  People  vs. 
Patrick  Calhoun  et  als.,  832,  refers  to  a  plot  hatched  about  the  time 
of  the  Ford  trials  to  kidnap  Ruef.     Burns  charges  that  Ruef  was  to 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        287 

There  were  other  surprises  for  the  representatives 
of  the  prosecution  at  the  Ford  trials  well  calculated  to 
confuse  them.  Alex.  Latham,  chauffeur  for  Ruef, 
whose  testimony  connected  Ruef  and  Ford,  during  the 
period  of  the  alleged  bribery  transactions  was,  when 
his  name  was  called  as  a  witness,  found  to  be  missing. 
He  was  alleged  to  be  in  Colorado. 

George  Starr,  treasurer  of  the  United  Railroads, 
whose  testimony  was  needed  in  the  tracing  of  the  ex- 
act amount  of  the  bribe  money  paid  Ruef  in  the  over- 
head trolley  deal,  $200,000,  that  had  been  placed  in 
Ford's  hands  under  somewhat  peculiar  circumstances, 
went  East  about  the  date  the  trial  opened.  The  United 
Railroads'  cash  book  was  sent  East  about  the  same 
time,  and  could  not  be  produced  at  the  trial. ^°^ 

have  been  taken  into  a  mountain  county  and  held  there  until  the 
United  Railroads  cases  had  heen  disposed  of.  He  states  his  belief 
that  Ruef  was  party  to  the  plot. 

303  The  disinclination  of  the  United  Railroads  to  produce  its 
books  continues  to  cause  that  corporation  inconvenience  and  trou- 
ble. In  1913,  for  example,  the  corporation  applied  to  the  California 
State  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  for  permission  to  issue 
promissory  notes  to  the  amount  of  $2,350,000.  That  the  Commis- 
sion might  determine  the  necessity  of  such  an  issue,  request  was 
made  for  the  corporation's  books.  This  request  was  denied.  The 
Commission  withheld  authorization  of  the  note  issue.  In  comment- 
ing upon  its  refusal,  the  Commission  said: 

"It  should  be  understood  that  the  conclusions  hereinbefore  set 
out  have  been  reached  on  the  partial  information  which  has  been 
submitted  to  the  Commission,  and  that  if  an  examination  of  the 
original  books  which  the  company  has  refused  to  supply  should 
reveal  a  different  condition,  the  responsibility  for  these  conclusions, 
which  we  contend  inevitably  must  be  drawn  from  what  evidence  is 
before  us.  lies  with  the  applicant  because  of  its  failure  to  submit 
its  books  for  examination  by  the  Commission. 

"It  is  an  axiom  that  evidence  suppressed  is  deemed  to  be  ad- 
verse, and  having  in  mind  this  axiom  certainly  the  Commission  is 
justified  in  concluding  that  the  books  which  the  applicant  refuses 
to  produce  at  least  would   not  better  its  showing." 

Following  the  defeat  of  the  graft  prosecution  in  November,  1909, 
peculiar  transactions  arc  recorded  against  the  United  Railroads. 
For  example,  the  Railroad  Commission  found,  and  has  so  reported, 
that  "in  the  minutes  (of  the  United  Railroads)  of  May  25,  1910,  it 
appears  that  four  years'  'back  salary'  was  voted  to  Patrick  Cal- 
houn,  president  of  the   United   Railroads  of  San  Francisco,   in  the 


288        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

Then  again,  witnesses  who  had  testified  freely  before 
the  Grand  Jury  became  forgetful.  Supervisor  Wilson, 
who  had  conveyed  word  to  Lonergan  from  Gallagher 
that  there  would  be  $4000  in  the  trolley  deal  for  Lon- 
ergan, could,  when  brought  to  the  witness  stand,  re- 
member nothing  of  the  incident.  Supervisor  Cofifey 
also  proved  equally  forgetful. ^°* 

In  the  midst  of  these  extraordinary  happenings.  Gen- 
eral Ford's  trial  went  on,  marked  by  repeated  attacks 
by  attorneys  for  the  defense  upon  those  who  had  been 
instrumental  in  bringing  about  the  Graft  Prosecution. 
Rudolph  Spreckels  in  particular,  was  made  object  of 
vicious  denunciation.  It  was  recognized  from  the  be- 
ginning that  the  defense  was  battling  not  for  General 
Ford  alone,  but  for  President  Calhoun,  and  the  other 
officials   of  the  United  Railroads  under  indictment. 

The  State's  attorneys,  target  for  constant  abuse  and 
ridicule  at  the  hands  of  the  defense,  proceeded,  how- 
ever, to  present  the  case  of  The  People.  In  spite  of 
sensations,  the  disappearance  of  witnesses  and  the  for- 
getfulness  of  witnesses,  the  prosecution  brought  out 
testimony  to  show  that  the  Supervisors  had  received 
$85,000  for  their  votes  granting  the  trolley  permit.     By 

sum  of  $75,000  a  year,  or  a  total  of  $300,000.  No  explanation  i.s 
made  of  this  item,  but  it  at  once  sugs^ests  the  necessity  of  a  thor- 
ough investigation  in  order  to  determine  tlie  items  claimed  by  ap- 
plicant as  operating  expenses  of  the  United  Railroads  over  a  series 
of  years."  See  Decision  No.  439,  Railroad  Commission  of  Califor- 
nia, in  the  matter  of  the  application  of  the  United  Railroads,  etc., 
February  4,  1913. 

304  Both  Wilson  and  Coffey  were  indicted  for  brilDC-taking.  Wil- 
son later  on  found  his  memory.  At  other  graft  trials  he  explained 
that  his  testimony  at  the  first  Ford  trial  had  been  given  after  he 
had  undergone  an  operation  that  had  involved  the  use  of  large 
quantities  of  cocaine.  He  insisted  that  he  did  not  know  to  what  he 
was  testifying.  Coffey  was  tried  for  bribe-taking  and  convicted. 
The  Supreme  Court,  however,  set  aside  the  verdict  on  technicali- 
ties. 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        289 

the  testimony  of  officials  of  the  United  States  Mint  it 
was  shown  that  Patrick  Calhoun  had,  after  the  fire,  but 
before  the  opening  of  the  San  Francisco  banks,  created 
a  fund  of  $200,000  at  the  Mint. 

None  of  the  directors  of  the  United  Railroads  who 
could  be  dragged  to  the  stand  knew  anything  about 
this  $200,000.  Other  amounts,  which  the  United  Rail- 
roads, during  the  days  of  stress  following  the  fire,  ha'd 
received  at  the  Mint  from  the  East,  could  be  accounted 
for  by  the  books  and  vouchers,  but  not  this  $200,000.^°^ 
United  Railroads  employes  who  could  be  made  to  testi- 
fy could  throw  no  light  upon  its  final  disposition. 

But  the  prosecution  did  show  by  the  Mint  officials 
that  President  Calhoun  had  ordered  the  $200,000  paid 
to  General  Ford  and  that  it  was  paid  to  General  Ford. 

The  following  dates,  brought  out  by  the  testimony, 
showed  the  receipt  and  suggested  the  disposition  of 
the  money : 

May  21 — Overhead  trolley  franchise  granted  by  the 
Board  of  Supervisors. 

305  It  was  shown  at  the  Ford  trial  that  about  $175,000  in  addition 
to  the  unaccounted-for  $200,000  was  received  by  the  United  Rail- 
roads through  the  United  States  mint.  Every  dollar  of  this  $175,- 
000  except  $3,000  loaned  to  Ruef  by  Mullally,  was  taken  out  by  the 
treasurer  of  the  company,  and  carried  to  the  United  Railroads' 
office  and  there  put  in  its  safe  and  used  as  needed,  that  it  was 
taken  in  gold  and  was  paid  out  to  its  employees  in  g'old.  It  was 
further  shown  that  not  one  dollar  of  currency  was  ever  put  in  any 
of  the  safes  at  the  United  Railroads'  office  by  any  person  during 
that  period  of  time  covered  by  Ford's  withdrawal  of  money  from 
the  mint,  and  that  no  currency  was  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the 
company  in  any  of  its  bank  accounts  nor  to  the  credit  of  Ford  or 
Mullally  or  AblDott,  and  that  no  currency  wns  turned  over  to  the 
treasurer  of  tlie  company  during  that  time.  Thus  by  a  process  of 
exclusion  this  $200,000  was  left  in  the  hands  of  Ford  absolutely 
unaccounted  for  upon  any  tlioory  consistent  with  an  honest  use  of 
it.  Add  these  facts  to  the  further  facts  that  Ruef  was  traced  to 
Ford's  office  on  two  of  the  days  on  which  Ford  got  the  money,  and 
that  Ruef  on  each  occasion,  within  a  day  or  two,  paid  the  same 
kind  of  money  to  Gallagher,  that  currency  was  n6t  generally  in 
circulation  at  all  in  San  Francisco. 

10 


290        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

May  22— $200,000  placed  in  the  Mint  to  the  credit 
of  Patrick  Calhoun. 

May  25— General  Ford  drew  $50,000  from  the  Mint 
which  he  exchanged  for  currency  of  small  denomina- 
tions. 

July  31— General  Ford  drew  $50,000  from  the  Mint, 
which  he  exchanged  for  currency. 

August  1 — The  Supervisors  received  from  Gallagher 
their  first  payment  for  voting  to  grant  the  overhead 
trolley  permit.  Gallagher  testified  that  he  had  received 
the  money  from  Ruef.  The  payments  were  in  cur- 
rency, the  bills  being  of  small  denominations. 

August  23— General  Ford  drew  $100,000  from  the 
Mint,  which  he  exchanged  for  currency,  receiving  bills 
of  large  denominations. 

August  24-30 — The  Supervisors  received  their  final 
payments  from  Gallagher  for  their  votes  on  the  trolley 
permit.  These  last  payments  were  made  in  bills  of 
large  denominations.  Gallagher  testified  that  he  had 
received  the  money  from  Ruef. 

The  withdrawals  from  the  Mint  had  been  made  by 
General  Ford,  on  Mr.  Calhoun's  instructions  to  the 
Mint  officials  that  the  payments  should  be  made  to  the 
General. 

The  testimony  of  the  Mint  officials  and  employes  was 
to  the  point  and  at  times  sensational.  Nathan  Selig,  a 
clerk  at  the  Mint,  for  example,  assisted  Eugene  D. 
Hawkins  as  assistant  cashier,^""  in  making  up  a  pack- 

306  The  two  men  were  at  the  time  detailed  to  handle  the  money 
of  the  relief  fund.  The  mint  officials  could  not  accommodate  Ford 
with  the  currency  he  wanted.  They  gave  him  gold.  The  gold  which 
Ford  secured  at  the  mint  was  trucked  across  the  hall  to  relief  head- 
quarters, where  it  was  exclipngoc!  for  the  currency.  Selig  and 
Hawkins  counted  out  the  bills. 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        291 

age  of  $50,000  in  bills  which  were  turned  over  to  Ford. 
Selig  fixed  the  time  of  the  occurrence  at  "shortly  after 
the  Mayor  signed  the  franchise  bill  for  the  overhead 
wire." 

"What  impressed  that  upon  your  mind?"  was  asked 
him.  "Because  I  made  the  remark  to  Mr.  Hawkins, 
as  he  was  going  out,"  replied  Selig,  "that  that  was — I 
though  it  was,  the  Supervisors'  'bit'." 

Having  traced  this  $200,000  from  Calhoun  to  the 
Mint  and  from  the  Mint  to  Ford,  the  prosecution  proved 
by  Charles  Hagerty,  Ruef's  office  boy,  that  during  the 
weeks  after  the  fire  General  Ford  and  Mr.  Mullally  of 
the  United  Railroads,  had  had  conference  with  Ruef  at 
Ruef's  office.  Ruef  was  traced  to  Ford's  office.  Ford's 
stenographer  testified,  reluctantly,  to  Ruef's  presence 
there.  Ford  was  shown  to  have  sent  warning,  through 
his  assistant  Abbott,  to  Ruef,  at  the  opening  of  the 
graft  investigation,  that  the  Grand  Jury  was  taking  up 
the  matter  of  the  United  Railroads  trolley  privilege, 
that  the  prosecution  had  not  made  any  headway,  that 
it  was  thought  the  next  step  would  be  to  lay  some  trap 
for  the  Supervisors.'"'^  That  Ruef  and  Ford  had  more 
or  less  intimate  relations  during  this  period  was  fully 
established. ^°^  The  question  raised  was :  Did  the  $85,- 
000  in  currency  which  Ruef  gave  Gallagher  to  be  paid 
to  the  Supervisors  for  their  votes  on  the  overhead 
trolley  permit  pass  from  Ford  to  Ruef?  Did  the  money 
paid  the  Supervisors  come  out  of  the  unaccounted-for 

307  See  transcript  of  testimony,  trial  of  Tiie  People  vs.  Tirey 
L.  Ford,   No.   817,   taken   September  25    1907,  page   270. 

308  Mr.  Mullally,  assistant  to  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  also  Mr.  Cal- 
houn -were  known  to  have  enjoyed  friendly  relations  with  Mr.  Ruef 
during  this  period. 


292       The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

$200,000  which  had  disappeared  into  General  Ford's 
possession  ?  ^"^ 

A  word  from  Abe  Ruef  would  have  lifted  the  case 
out  of  the  plane  of  circumstantial  to  that  of  positive 
evidence. 

A  word  from  General  Ford  would  have  shown  the 
manner  in  which  the  money  had  been  disposed. 

Those  who  took  seriously  Ruef's  protestations  at 
the  time  of  his  plea  of  guilty  to  extortion,  that  his  life 
would  thereafter  be  devoted  to  undoing  the  wrong  he 
had  wrought,  looked  to  see  the  prosecution  put  Ruef 
on  the  stand. 

The  many  supporters  of  General  Ford — he  was  one 
of  the  most  likable  and  popular  men  in  the  State — 
who  still  held  belief  in  his  innocence,  looked  to  see  him 
take  the  stand  to  clear  his  name  by  accounting  for  the 
disposition  of  that  $200,000  which  he  had  received,  at 
the  order  of  President  Calhoun,  from  the  Mint  officials. 

But  neither  Ruef  nor  Ford  took  the  stand. 

Later  developments  in  the  graft  cases  showed  why 
the  prosecution  did  not  call  upon  Ruef  to  testify. 

But  no  satisfactory  showing  has  been  made  why 
General  Ford  did  not  take  the  stand  to  tell,  under  oath, 
of  the  disposition  of  that  $200,000  last  seen  in  his  pos- 
session. 


309  The  facts  brought  out  at  General  Ford's  trial  are  interesting 
in  connection  with  General  Ford's  interview  in  the  San  Francisco 
Examiner  of  October  28,  1906,  soon  after  the  Graft  Prosecution 
opened.     See  Footnote  92. 

Ruef,  in  "The  Road  I  Traveled,"  printed  in  the  San  Francisco 
Bulletin,  states  that  he  gave  Schmitz  $50,000  and  kept  $50,000  for 
himself  out  of  the  $200,000  which  was  given  to  him  by  Tirey  L. 
Ford  from  Patrick  Calhoun  to  pay  for  the  granting  of  the  trolley 
permit. 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        293 

Heney,  in  an  affidavit  ^^"  acknowledged  March  10, 
1908,  tells  why  Ruef  was  not  called  upon  to  testify. 

Some  ten  days  before  the  taking  of  testimony  in  the 
first  Ford  trial  began,  according  to  this  affidavit,  Heney 
had  Gallagher  and  Ruef  at  his  office.  The  two  men 
had  told  stories  of  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  grant- 
ing the  trolley  permit,  which  conflicted  slightly.  Heney's 
purpose  in  confronting  them,  he  tells  us  in  the  affidavit, 
was  that  he  might  determine  in  his  own  mind  which 
was  right.  Heney  had  not  seen  Ruef,  except  as  he  had 
passed  him  in  court  or  corridor,  since  he  had  proved 
that  Ruef  had  made  misrepresentations  to  him  in  the 
French  Restaurant  cases.^^^  The  conversation  between 
Ruef  and  Gallagher  did  not  tend  to  change  Heney's 
opinion  of  the  broken  boss.  Indeed,  Heney  became 
more  firmly  convinced  than  ever  that  Ruef  was  not 
acting  in  good  faith,  that  he  was  not  telling  the  whole 
truth.  A  few  days  after  this  meeting.  Burns  brought 
Heney  word  that  Ruef  would  not  testify  at  the  Ford 
trial  at  all,  unless  the  prosecution  allowed  him  to  with- 
draw his  plea  of  guilty  in  the  extortion  case,  and  dis- 
missed all  the  indictments  against  him.  Heney  refused 
to  be  coerced.  He  sent  word  back  to  Ruef  that  the 
prosecution  had  had  sufficient  evidence  to  convict  Ford 
before  Ruef  had  told  anything;  that  if  Ruef  were  called 
to  the  witness-stand  it  would  be  without  further  talk 
with  him ;  that  none  of  the  cases  against  him  would  be 
dismissed,  and  that  if  called  to  the  stand  he  could  tes- 
tify or  not  testify,  as  he  saw  fit. 

310  This  affidavit  deals  with  the  Graft  Prosecution  from  its  be- 
ginning down  to  the  spring  of  1908.  This  document  was  filed  in  tlie 
case  of  The  People  vs.   Patrick  Calhoun  et  als.,   No.   823. 

311  See  Chapter  XVI,  page  211,  and  footnote  119,  page  111. 


294        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

That  night,  according  to  Heney,  Rabbis  Nieto  and 
Kaplan,  with  Riief's  attorney,  Henry  Ach,^^^  appeared 
at  Heney's  office.  Ach  announced  in  substance,  accord- 
ing to  Heney's  affidavit,  that  inasmuch  as  Heney  and 
Langdon  had  promised  to  permit  Ruef  to  withdraw  his 
plea  of  guilty  to  the  extortion  charge,  and  then  dismiss 
the  case,  as  a  condition  upon  which  Ruef  signed  the 
immunity  contract,^^^  the  time  had  arrived  when,  in 
justice  to  Ruef,  this  ought  to  be  done.^^* 

Heney  let  Ach  finish. 

"We  might  as  well  understand  each  other,"  Heney 
then  announced.  "You  know  perfectly  well  that  I  did 
not  at  any  time  make  any  such  promise  to  Ruef  or  to 
you,  or  to  any  one  present,  or  to  any  one  else  on  earth." 

Heney  then  recited  the  exact  terms  of  his  promise.''^^ 

312  This  is  the  same  Ach  who  dramatically  left  the  Ruef  de- 
fense at  the  time  of  Ruef's  plea  of  guilty  to  extortion.  See 
Chapter  XV,  page  204. 

313  For  immunity  contract  see  page  xix  of  the  Appendix.  For 
the  negotiations  upon  which  Ach's  claim  was  based  see  Chapter 
XV. 

314  Heney  sets  forth  in  his  aflldavit  that  Ach's  claim  did  not 
surprise  him.  He  says  of  Ach's  statement:  "I  was  not  very  much 
surprised  by  its  substance  as  I  had  long  before  commenced  to  sus- 
pect that  Ruef,  Acli,  Dr.  Kaplan  and  Dr.  Nieto  would  claim  eventu- 
ally that  such  agreement  existed  in  regard  to  case  number  305 
(the  extortion  case)  if  it  became  necessary  to  do  so  in  order  to 
keep  Ruef  out  of  the  penitentiary.  In  fact  I  would  not  have  been 
greatly  surprised  by  anything  that  Ach  might  have  claimed,  as  I 
have  learned  to  know  him  pretty  well  and  am  sometimes  at  a  loss  to 
decide  whether  he  or  Ruef  is  entitled  to  first  place  as  an  artistic 
and  imaginative  'equivocator,'  to  use  Ruef's  language." 

315  See  Chapter  XV,  pages  190-7.  Heney  states  in  his  afHdavit 
that  both  Nieto  and  Kaplan  agreed  that  Heney's  statement  of  the 
arrangement  was  correct.  "Yes,  you  are  right,  Mr.  Heney,"  the 
affidavit  sets  forth  Nieto  said.  "I  understand  it  that  way,  and 
consequently  I  never  told  Ruef  anything  about  that.  He  never 
got  that  from  me."  The  affidavit  sets  forth  that  Kaplan  said  in 
substance:  "Yes,  that  is  what  you  said,  Mr.  Heney,  but  I  always 
understood  that  Mr.  Ruef  would  be  allowed  to  withdraw  his  plea  of 
guilty  in  the  French  Restaurant  cases  and  would  not  receive  any 
punishment." 

Heney  replied  in  substance:  "You  may  have  so  understood. 
Doctor,  but  you  had  no  right  so  to  understand  from  anything  which 
I  said." 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        295 

Both  Kaplan  and  Nieto  agreed  with  him  that  his  state- 
ment was  correct,  but  Kaplan  insisted  that  he  had  un- 
derstood that  Ruef  was  to  be  allowed  to  withdraw  his 
plea,  arguing  that  he  had  told  the  truth  and  that  his 
evidence  was  very  important. 

"Ruef  lied  to  us,"  answered  Heney  emphatically,  "in 
the  French  Restaurant  case,  and  I  proved  it  to  him  in 
this  very  room,  and  he  simply  laughed  in  my  face.  He 
also  lied  to  us  in  all  the  other  cases.  He  is  not  entitled 
to  immunity  in  any  case,  and  I  not  only  will  not  permit 
him  to  withdraw  his  plea  of  guilty  in  case  number  305, 
but  on  the  contrary  it  is  my  present  intention  to  ask  the 
court  in  that  case  to  give  him  no  leniency  whatever, 
but  to  sentence  him  for  the  maximum  term  which  is 
prescribed  by  law." 

Heney  suggested  that  Ruef's  representatives  take 
this   word  back  to  their  principal. 

"Ruef,"  Heney  concluded,  "tried  to  job  the  prosecu- 
tion and  he  has  only  succeeded  in  jobbing  himself  into 
the  penitentiary." 

Ten  days  later,  when  Heney  made  his  opening  state- 
ment before  the  first  Ford  jury,  he  carefully  refrained 
from  stating  that  the  prosecution  expected  to  prove 
any  fact  that  necessarily  depended  in  whole  or 
in  part  upon  Ruef's  testimony.  And  with  all  San 
Francisco  on  tiptoe  of  expectancy,^'*'  Heney  closed  the 


316  Heney,  in  his  closing  argument,  told  tlie  jury  tluit  Kuef 
had  not  been  put  on  the  stand  because  the  prosecution  did  not  trust 
him.  Heney  said:  "Nobody  except  Mr.  Ford  and  Mr.  Ruef  could 
tell  about  It  (the  passing  of  the  .$200,000).  They  did  not  complain 
about  my  asking  why  they  did  not  put  Mr.  Ruef  on  the  stand. 
They  asked  why  we  didn't  put  hhn  on  tlie  stand  and  vouch  for  his 
veracity  and  enable  them  to  put  v.'ords  in  his  mouth,  and  i  will 
answer  now,  because  we  DID  NOT  TRUST  HIM." 


296        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

case  of  The  People  without  putting  Ruef  on  the  stand.^^^ 
The  defense  offered  no  evidence.     The  case  went  to 

the   jury   on   the   evidence   which    the    prosecution   had 

presented.     The  jury  failed  to  agree,  eight  standing  for 

acquittal,  and  four  for  conviction. 

General  Ford  was  immediately  brought  to  trial  for 

the  second  time.     The  case  selected  was  for  the  bribery 

of  Supervisor  Jennings  Phillips. 

Heney,  in  his  opening  statement,  announced  that  he 

did  not  intend  to  put  Ruef  on  the  stand.     The  second 

case  presented  was,  if  anything,  stronger  than  the  first, 

317  Heney,  in  his  affidavit,  describes  the  disappointment  of  Ruef, 
Ach  and  Nieto  when  the  case  was  closed  without  Ruef  being  called. 
Heney  says:  "I  rested  the  case  on  behalf  of  the  prosecution  in  the 
first  Ford  trial  in  this  department  of  this  Court  on  tlie  2nd  day  of 
October,  1907,  and  the  attorneys  for  the  defendant  asked  for  time 
to  consider  what  they  would  do  about  putting  in  evidence,  and 
Court  adjourned  for  the  purpose  of  giving  tlieni  such  time.  I  had 
noticed  Henry  Ach  and  Ruef  sitting  together  next  to  the  aisle, 
which  was  directly  in  front  of  where  I  sat,  and  could  see  that  up 
to  the  time  I  closed  the  case  they  were  anxiously  waiting  for  me 
to  call  Ruef  as  a  witness.  When  Court  adjourned  they  remained 
sitting  and  as  I  passed  tliem  Ach  stopped  me  and  said  in  sub- 
stance, 'Why  didn't  you  put  Ruef  on  the  stand  as  a  witness?  Are 
you  not  going  to  dismiss  these  cases  against  him?'  I  replied  in 
substance,  'There  are  a  lot  more  cases  to  be  tried.  There  will  be 
plenty  of  opportunities  to  dismiss  these  cases  if  I  want  to  do  it.' 
Ruef  said,  with  one  of  his  most  winning  smiles,  in  substance,  'I 
guess  he  is  going  to  put  me  on  in  rebuttal  just  as  he  did  in  the 
Schmitz  case.'  I  replied  in  substance,  'Oh,  I  don't  know  about  that, 
Ruef.  I  don't  like  to  try  all  my  cases  the  same  way.'  I  started  to 
leave  and  Ach  stopped  me  as  I  had  taken  only  a  couple  of  steps, 
and  said  in  substance,  'There  isn't  any  change  in  the  situation,  is 
there  in  regard  to  Ruef?'  I  smilingly  and  meaningly  replied,  in 
substance,  'Not  a  particle,  Henry,  since  our  last  talk,'  meaning 
thereby  the  talk  which  Ach  and  myself  had  on  or  about  the  19th 
or  20th  day  of  September,  1907,  at  night  in  my  office  in  tlie  presence 
of  Dr.  Nieto,  Dr.  Kaplan,  William  J.  Burns  and  Charles  W.  Cobb, 
as  hereinbefore  set  forth.  As  I  made  this  statement  I  walked  on 
out  of  the  courtroom  and  someone  stopped  me  somewhere  between 
there  and  the  entrance  door  of  the  building  and  Pr.  Nieto  came  up 
to  me,  all  smiles,  and  said  in  substance,  'You  didn't  put  Ruef  on 
the  stand,  did  you?'  I  replied,  'No,  I  did  not,  Doctor."  Dr.  Nieto 
then  said  in  substance,  'There  isn't  any  change  in  the  situation,  is 
there?'  And  I  replied  with  a  smile  in  substance,  'None  whatever 
since  our  last  talk.  Doctor,'  meaning  the  talk  at  my  office  just 
hereinbefore  referred  to,  at  which  Dr.  Nieto,  Dr.  Kaplan  and  Ach 
were  present.  The  manner  of  Ach  and  the  manner  of  Dr.  Nieto 
when  I  made  this  reply  to  each  of  them  indicated  plainly  that 
each   understood   exactly  what  I  meant." 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        297 

but  the  jury  brought  in  a  verdict  of  "not  guilty."  Gen- 
eral Ford  was  tried  on  a  third  of  the  indictments 
against  him,  and  again  was  the  verdict  of  the  jury 
"not  guilty." 

Long  after,  the  prosecution  discovered  that  agents 
for  the  United  Railroads  had  systematically  corrupted 
members  of  its  detective  force.  On  the  evidence  in  the 
hands  of  the  prosecution,  a  searcli  warrant  was  secured, 
and  the  offices  of  the  United  Railroads  raided  in  a 
search  for  stolen  documents.  Copies  of  over  2400  doc- 
uments belonging  to  the  prosecution  were  found.  It 
developed  that  men  in  the  employ  of  the  prosecution 
were  receiving  regular  monthly  salaries  from  agents  of 
the  United  Railroads  to  turn  these  reports  over  to 
agents  of  the  defense  for  copying.  The  defense  was 
in  this  way  kept  informed  of  all  that  had  been  reported 
to  the  prosecution  regarding  jurors,  etc.,  by  Burns's 
own  agents. ^^** 

318  Calhoun  protested  vigorously  against  the  raiding  of  his  offices. 
Concerning  the  raid  and  Mr.  Calhoun's  protests,  the  interior  press 
expressed  general  approval  of  the  first  and  condemnation  of  the 
latter. 

"It  is  not  a  question,"  said  the  Oroville  Register,  "alone  of  graft 
in  San  Francisco  now.  It  is  rather  a  question  as  to  whether  in 
America,  where  'all  men  are  free  and  equal,'  there  is  a  law  for 
the  rich  and  another  law  for  the  poor,  and  whetlier  a  little  money 
can  put  our  whole  penal  system  at  nauglit  and  make  monkeys  of 
judicial  officers.  Unluckily  in  the  Calhoun  case  we  can  not  in 
America  resort  to  the  czar-like  methods  which  should  be  resorted 
to,  but  must  fight  it  out  by  the  long  and  slow  process  of  law. 
Luckily  for  the  honor  of  America  Mr.  Heney  and  his  associates 
are  gifted  with  the  courage,  ability  and  tenacity  to  fight  it  out 
on  this  line  even  if  it  takes  this  summer  and  the  whole  of  the  next 
so  to  do." 

"The  'private  sanctity'  of  Calhoun's  offices,"  said  the  Santa 
Barbara  Independent,  "was  violated,  his  defenders  say,  when  the 
police  entered  to  search  for  stolen  goody.  The  fact  that  the  goods 
were  concealed  in  the  offices — that  the  police  unearthed  there  a 
'fence'  for  the  reception  of  stolen  goods — doesn't  seem  to  have  de- 
stroyed the  sanctity  of  the  place. 

"Recently  the  police  in  Los  Angeles  raided  a  cigar  store,  where 
they  found  concealed  some  of  the  money  that  three  months  ago  had 
been  stolen  from   the  Monrovia  bank.     The  cigar  dealer's  lawyers 


298        The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals 

At  the  time  of  the  third  Ford  trial,  for  example, 
Heney  was  engaged  with  Ruef's  trial  in  the  Parkside 
case.  The  Ford  trial  was  conducted  for  the  State  by 
John  O'Gara.  One  of  Burns's  men,  Piatt  by  name,  was 
appointed  to  assist  O'Gara  by  advising  him  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  men  drawn  for  jury  service.  O'Gara 
repeatedly  discovered  Piatt's  advice  and  suggestions  to 
be  unreliable.  Long  after  it  was  discovered  that  Piatt 
was  at  the  time  in  the  employ  of  agents  for  the  United 
Railroads.  The  reason  for  the  character  of  his  advice 
and  suggestions  was  then  apparent. 

At  none  of  the  Ford  trials  did  the  defense  attempt 
to  meet  the  evidence  which  the  prosecution  presented. 
At  the  third  trial,  the  prosecution  called  President  Cal- 
houn and  Abe  Ruef  ^^^  to  the  stand.  But  both  declined 
to  answer.  The  disposition  of  the  $50,000  in  currency 
in  small  bills,  and  of  the  $150,000  in  currency  in  large 
bills,  which  passed  into  General  Ford's  hands,  at  the 
time  that  currency  of  this  exact  amount  and  descrip- 
tion passed  into  the  hands  of  Abe  Ruef,  $85,000  of 
which  Ruef  distributed  among  the  Supervisors  for  vot- 
ing for  the  United  Railroads  trolley  permit,  continues 
as  great  a  mystery  as  it  was  on  the  day  that  the  first 
Ford  trial   opened.     Ruef  at  the   time   of  his   plea   of 

should  go   into   court   and    protest  against  violation   of  the   'private 
sanctity'  of  the  thief's  hiding  place. 

"It  is  beyond  understanding  how^  men  can  view  a  similar  cir- 
cumstance in  different  lights.  To  an  unprejudiced  mind  a  thief  is  a 
thief,  whether  he  has  stolen  an  old  pair  of  shoes  or  robbed  the  pub- 
lic through  a  municipal  or  other  government.  And  the  honest  man 
rejoices  in  his  capture,  the  recovery  of  the  stolen  goods  and  appre- 
hension and  punishment  of  persons  who  receive  and  conceal  the 
fruits  of  theft." 

319  Calhoun  and  Ruef  were  placed  on  the  stand  April  29,  1908. 
Their  refusal  to  answer  will  be  found  in  the  transcript  of  testi- 
mony taken  that  day.  Complete  records  of  all  the  graft  cases 
were  in  1912,  when  this  review  was  written,  in  the  possession  of 
A.  A.  Moore,  prominently  connected  with  the  graft  defense. 


The  Ford  Trials  and  Acquittals        299 

guilty  to  the  extortion  charge,  and  five  years  later  in 
the  story  of  his  career  published  in  the  San  Francisco 
Bulletin,  admitted  that  the  $200,000  that  on  Calhoun's 
order  was  turned  over  to  Ford  was  soon  after  paid  to 
him  (Ruef )  because  of  the  granting  of  the  trolley  per- 
mit. The  $85,000  that  Gallagher  divided  among  the 
Supervisors  on  account  of  their  granting  this  permit, 
Ruef  has  stated  in  his  several  confessions,  came  out  of 
this  Calhoun-to-Ford,  Ford-to-Ruef  $200,000. 

And  in  California  there  are  many  who  hold  that  in 
this  instance,  at  least,  Ruef  is  telling  the  truth. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907. 

Scarcely  had  the  prosecution  overcome  the  delaying 
tactics  of  the  defense,  and  forced  graft  cases  to  trial, 
than  District  Attorney  Langdon  had  to  defend  title  to 
his  office  at  the  polls. 

Langdon  had  taken  office  in  January,  1906.  His 
term  was  to  expire  in  January,  1908.  The  municipal 
election,  at  which  Mr.  Langdon's  successor  was  to  be 
elected,  was  to  be  held  in  November. 

At  that  time  was  to  be  elected  besides  the  District 
Attorney,  the  Mayor,  Supervisors  and  practically  all 
the  other  municipal  officials. 

The  old  convention  system  of  naming  candidates  for 
office  still  prevailed  in  San  Francisco.  However,  Cali- 
fornia had  even  then  entered  upon  the  struggle  of 
throwing  off  the  yoke  of  machine  domination  through 
the  convention  system  of  naming  candidates.  The  dele- 
gates to  the  several  conventions  had,  under  primary 
law  provisions,  to  be  elected  at  the  polls. 

San  Francisco  was  divided  upon  one  issue — that  of 
the  Graft  Prosecution.  The  opposition  which  years  of 
adverse  publicity  was  to  develop,  did  not  then  confront 
those  who  were  standing  for  vigorous  prosecution  of 
the  corrupters  of  the  municipality.  But  under  the  ham- 
mering of  an  adverse  press,  and  the  claquer's  systematic 
belittling,  the  graft  defense  had  made  gains  sufficient 
to  give  it  at  least  a  fighting  chance  at  the  polls. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907     301 

On  the  side  of  the  defense,  too,  was  the  soHd  sup- 
port of  the  powerful  Southern  Pacific  Company,  and  of 
the  various  pubHc  service  corporations,  as  well  as  the 
purchasable  press.  On  the  side  of  the  prosecution 
stood  the  people  of  San  Francisco,  not  yet  worn  out, 
nor  misled,  nor  yet  alienated  from  the  policy  of  vigor- 
ous prosecution  of  the  corrupters  of  the  municipality. 
The  people  recognized  that  effective  continuance  of  the 
prosecution  required  that  Mr.  Langdon  be  re-elected. 

That  the  action  of  the  prosecution  in  making  Taylor 
Mayor,  might  be  endorsed  at  the  polls — thus  receiving 
the  stamp  of  public  approval — Mr.  Taylor's  election 
became  quite  as  important  as  that  of  Mr.  Langdon. 
The  same  was  true  of  those  of  the  Taylor-appointed 
Supervisors  who  became  candidates  for  election.  But 
the  contest  waged  about  the  election  of  Taylor  and 
Langdon. 

Such  was  the  issue  which  confronted  San  Francisco 
at  the  1907  election. 

There  was  but  one  issue.  There  were,  however, 
three  prominent  political  parties.  Union  Labor,  Repub- 
lican and  Democratic.  None  of  the  three  could  be 
called  the  prosecution  party,  nor  for  that  matter,  the 
defense  party;  nor  had  any  faction  of  any  of  the  par- 
ties the  temerity  to  declare  against  the  prosecution  of 
those  trapped  in  corruption,  however  vigorously  op- 
posed to  the  prosecution  this  or  that  faction  might  be. 
But  each  of  the  three  parties  did  divide  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  election  of  Langdon  and  Taylor. 

Breadly  speaking,  the  supporters  of  the  prosecution 
in  all  parties  demanded  that  Taylor  and  Langdon  be 
nominated.      The   opponents    of   the   prosecution,   while 


302     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

declaring  loudly  for  the  prosecution  of  all  offenders 
against  the  law,  labored  for  their  defeat.  On  this 
issue,  not  always  clearly  defined,  the  intraparty  factions 
met  at  the  primary  polls.  The  prosecution,  therefore, 
had  three  independent  political  fights  on  its  hands. 

Langdon  had  been  elected  by  the  Union  Labor 
party.  Taylor  was  a  Democrat.  But  in  the  confusion 
of  the  times  the  principal  primary  fight  was  within  the 
Republican  party. 

The  Republican  opposition  to  those  roughly  described 
as  "pro-prosecution,"  found  expression  in  the  remnants 
of  the  old-time  machine — generally  called  Herrin — ele- 
ment. At  its  head  were  many  of  the  experienced  ma- 
chine leaders.  The  Republican  pro-prosecution  forces 
were  at  first  without  definite  leadership.  But  in  this 
emergency  most  effective  leadership  developed. 

Daniel  A.  Ryan,  a  young  "Irish-American,"  came  to 
the  fore  as  captain  of  the  reform  forces  within  the 
Republican  party. 

Ryan  is  of  the  highest  type  of  his  race,  as  developed 
under  the  advantageous  conditions  to  which  the  immi- 
grant and  his  descendants  have,  in  these  United  States, 
been  admitted.  Well  educated,  forceful,  a  brilliant 
speaker,  effective  as  an  organizer,  a  lover  of  the  politi- 
cal game,  Ryan  was  soon  the  recognized  leader  of  the 
new  movement. 

He  was  trusted  implicitly.  The  selection  of  candi- 
dates for  convention  places  was  left  largely  in  his 
hands.  Under  Mr.  Ryan's  leadership  the  fight  for 
effective  continuation  of  the  Graft  Prosecution  was  car- 
ried on  within  the  Republican  party. 

The  division  in  the  Union  Labor  party  was  scarcely 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907    303 

less  pronounced.  The  party,  roughly  speaking-,  divided 
with  P.  H.  McCarthy  heading  the  anti-prosecution  side, 
and  men  of  the  type  of  Walter  Macarthur,  one  of  the 
founders  of  the  party,  leading  the  forces  supporting 
Langdon  and  his  associates. 

But  here  again  there  was  ^  most  confusing  division. 
Thomas  F.  Eagan,  chairman  of  the  Union  Labor  Party 
County  Committee,  for  example,  was  quoted  within  a 
week  of  the  primaries,  as  announcing:  "Schmitz  is  an 
ideal  candidate  (for  Mayor).  If  available,  he  would  be 
nominated  by  the  delegates  that  will  be  elected  on  the 
regular  Union  Labor  ticket."  Nevertheless,  Mr.  Eagan 
was  unalterably  opposed  to  Mr.  McCarthy  heading  the 
ticket. 

The  Democratic  division  was  less  pronounced  than 
in  either  the  Republican  or  LTnion  Labor  party.  The 
side  favoring  Taylor,  without  much  reference  to  Lang- 
don, went  to  the  primary  polls  under  the  regular  Dem- 
ocratic leadership,  with  Thomas  W.  Hickey,  chairman 
of  the  Democratic  County  Central  Committee,  at  its 
head.  Prominent  in  the  opposition  was  Lewis  F.  Bying- 
ton,  who  had  preceded  Mr.  Langdon  as  District  Attor- 
ney. Mr.  Byington  was  brother-in-law  of  General  Tirey 
L.  Ford,  even  then  under  trial  for  bribery,  and  one  of 
General  Ford's  attorneys. 

In  the  confusion  of  these  many-sided  contests,  the 
defense  had  its  best  opportunity  for  success.  But  the 
result,  so  far  as  the  Democratic  and  Republican  parties 
were  concerned,  was  overwhelmingly  successful  for  the 
prosecution.^-" 

320  The  outcome  of  the  Republican  primaries  was  looked  upon 
as  a  victory  for  good  government.     Said  the  Call,  in  discussing  the 


304     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

Of  the  delegates  to  the  Republican  convention  the 
Ryan  (pro-prosecution)  forces  elected  142,  the  "Her- 
rin"  (anti-prosecution)  forces  7  only.  Of  the  164  del- 
egates to  the  Democratic  convention,  161  were  elected 
by  the  regular  (pro-prosecution)  element,  and  3  by  the 
Byington  (anti-prosecution)  side.  The  popular  vote 
within  these  parties  was  scarcely  less  pronounced. ^^^  On 
the  other  hand,  within  the  Union  Labor  party  the  anti- 
prosecution  forces  were  overwhelmingly  successful,  the 
McCarthy  faction  electing  185  delegates  and  the  forces 
led  by  Walter  Macarthur  and  his  associates  13  only. 

Under  the  alignment,  it  was  expected  that  the  Re- 
publicans and  Democrats  would  unite  without  hesita- 
tion  upon  Taylor  and   Langdon,   leaving  the   cause  of 

returns:  "Two  things  stand  out  prominently  in  the  returns  of  the 
primary  elections  yesterday.  One  is  that  the  Republicans  of  San 
Francisco  have  had  enough  of  Herrin.  The  other  is  that  they  have 
not  had  enough  of  the  graft  prosecution.  The  victory  for  decency 
and  for  the  independence  of  the  party  from  the  thralldom  in  which 
Herrin  has  so  long  held  it  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Southern 
Pacific  was  complete,  with  a  vote  large  enough  to  make  it  plain 
to  Herrin  and  to  the  interests  exposed  and  to  be  exposed  in  the 
debauchery  of  public  servants  that  they  must  look  elsewhere  than 
to  the  Republicans  of  San  Francisco  for  the  old  corrupt  conditions. 
The  Call  takes  to  itself  credit  for  some  share  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  good  work.  It  was  this  paper  that  spoiled  Herrin's 
infamous  apportionment  scheme  by  which  he  planned  to  fill  the 
burned  district  with  his  dum.mics  and  thus  control  the  municipal 
convention.  It  was  this  paper  that  began  and  carried  on  to  the 
last  moment  a  vigorous  campaign  in  behalf  of  the  decent  element 
of  the  Republican  party,  whose  leadership  was  in  the  capable  and 
clean  hands  of  Daniel  A.  Ryan.  The  Call  has  no  candidates.  It 
wants  only  honest,  capable  independent  men.  It  made  this  winning 
fight  because  it  wanted  a  clean  government  for  San  Francisco  and 
because  it  wanted  the  graft  prosecution  carried  out  to  the  end." 

321  The  primary  vote   was   the   largest   up  to   that  time   cast  in 
San  Francisco.     It  was  as  follows: 

Anti-Herrin  (Ryan)  Republican 8,116 

Herrin    Republicans 3,207 

Irregular  Republicans    1,549 

Regular    Democratic    2,438 

Byington,    Democratic    1,081 

McCarthy,    Union   Labor    3,655 

Macarthur,  Union  Labor 2,197 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907     305 

the  indicted  corporation  managers  to  find  expression 
in  tile  Union  Labor  party  platform  and  candidates. *^^ 

But  scarcely  had  the  primary  returns  been  made 
public  than  the  San  Francisco  Call,  generally  regarded 
as  stanchly  on  the  side  of  the  prosecution,  brought 
confusion  upon  the  pro-prosecution  element,  by  suggest- 
ing the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Ryan  for  Mayor  and  belit- 
tling the  candidacy  of  Mayor  Taylor. 

"Ryan,"  said  The  Call  through  its  political  repre- 
sentative, Mr.  George  Van  Smith,  "has  not  sought  and 
is  not  seeking  the  Republican  nomination  for  Mayor. 
He  may  have  it  forced  upon  him  and  find  himself  the 
recipient  of  similar  endorsement  of  his  powers  as  a 
boss-buster,   from   the   Democratic   organization." 

The  Call,  in  the  same  issue,  hinted  that  the  Demo- 
crats might  not  nominate  Taylor.  Without  a  Demo- 
cratic nomination,  Taylor  could  not  expect  nomination 
at  the  hands  of  the  Republicans. 

"That  the  Democrats  will  nominate  Mayor  Taylor," 
said  The  Call,  "is  more  than  doubtful.  Mayor  Taylor 
was  drafted  into  the  city's  service.  He  has  not  given 
any  indication  of  a  desire  to  serve  the  city  as  the  head 
of  its  government  after  the  time  when  a  popularly 
selected  successor  could  be  qualified.     If  the  Democrats 


322  On  the  eve  of  the  primary  election,  P.  H.  McCarthy,  leader 
of  the  anti-Prosecution  faction  of  the  Union  Labor  party,  issued 
a  warning  to  union  men  in  which  he  said:  "Too  much  caution 
cannot  be  exercised  by  you,  nor  too  much  diligence  displayed  in 
order  to  protect  your  rights  at  the  polls  today.  One  of  the  most 
cunning,  deceptive  and  vicious  attacks  ever  made  on  organized  labor 
in  this  city  is  now  being  launched  in  order  that  your  wages  may 
be  cut  and  your  workmg  hours  increased  to  suit  the  millionaires  in 
this  city.  To  do  so,  those  millionaires  have  drawn  to  their  side 
by  what  force  we  are  unable  to  say,  certain  labor  men  (Walter 
Macarthur  and  his  associates)  with  a  view  to  shuffling,  confusing 
and  thoroughly  misleading  the  labor  union  voters  and  their  sympa- 
thizers in  this  city." 


3o6    The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

do  not  nominate  Dr.  Taylor,  the  Republicans  would 
scarcely  be  expected  to  do  so.  The  fact  that  the  men 
who  will  make  up  an  almost  exclusive  majority  of  the 
Republican  convention  seem  to  be  committed  to  the 
idea  of  nominating  Ryan  appears  to  preclude  the  nomi- 
nation of  Taylor  by  either  party." 

The  source  of  The  Call's  information  is  not  appar- 
ent. Up  to  the  time  of  the  publication  of  its  article, 
August  15,  there  was  no  sentiment  in  San  Francisco  for 
the  election  of  Mr.  Ryan  to  the  Mayoralty.  On  the 
contrary,  the  understanding  was  that  Mr.  Ryan  had 
entered  the  contest  from  motives  of  good  citizenship 
only,  and  that  he  was  in  no  sense  a  seeker  of  office  for 
himself.^^^  Such  had  been  the  understanding  during 
the  primary  campaign ;  such  was  the  sense  of  the  com- 
munity after  the  primary  vote  had  been  cast. 

All  recognized,  however,  that  Mr.  Ryan  was  in  a 
position  of  great  pov.-er.  He  had  been  trusted  implicitly. 
The  selection  of  anti-Herrin  candidates  for  delegates 
had  been  left  largely  in  his  hands.  Few  thought,  how- 
ever, that  he  had  selected  delegates  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  himself  the  Republican  nomination  for  the  May- 
oralty. Then,  again,  aside  from  the  confusion  his  can- 
didacy would  work  in  the  ranks  of  the  anti-Herrin,  pro- 


323  Many  Ryan  Republican  district  tickets  contained  the  fol- 
lowing printed  statement: 

"The  candidates  on  this  ticket  are  pledged  to  use  all  their  in- 
fluence in  the  convention  to  secure  the  nomination  of  a  ticket  of 
capable  men  and  hope  that  they  will  be  indorsed  by  the  conven- 
tions of  all  parties.  They  do  not  care  who  these  men  may  be,  but 
will  vote  for  no  man  who  can  be  suspected  of  peddling  offices  or 
jobs  in  return  for  support.  They  do  not  desire  nor  expect  for  them- 
selves or  for  their  friends  any  offices  or  jobs.  No  candidate  on 
this  ticket  has  ever  sought  or  held  a  political  office  or  job.  The 
candidates  on  this  ticket  have  all  accepted  the  pledge  of  the 
Regular  Republican  League.  Daniel  A.  Ryan,  chairman;  Perry 
H.    Newberry,    secretary." 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907    307 

prosecution  element,  Mr.  Ryan,  while  a  pleasing  young 
man  and  clever  politician,  it  was  generally  recognized 
had  few  qualities  usually  looked  for  in  the  Mayor  of  a 
community  of  half  a  million  people. 

To  add  to  the  confusion,  The  Examiner,  which  was 
now  in  active  opposition  to  the  prosecution,  came  out 
strongly  against  Mr.  Ryan's  candidacy,  denouncing  it 
as  "a  grotesque  piece  of  effrontery."  "For  the  primary 
leader,"  said  The  Examiner,  "to  appropriate  the  office 
to  himself,  is  like  the  agent  of  a  charity  fund  determin- 
ing that  he  is  the  most  worthy  object  of  the  charity,  and 
putting  ^-*  the  money  in  his  own  pocket." 


324  The  Examiner,  In  its  issue  of  September  19,  1907,  in  discuss- 
ing Mr.  Ryan's  proposed  candidacy  said:  "It  is  generally  under- 
stood that  Mr.  Dan  Ryan  proposes  to  nominate  himself  as  the 
Republican  candidate  for  Mayor  of  San  Francisco.  That  lie  has 
the  power  to  do  this  thing  is  one  of  the  curiosities  of  our  political 
system. 

"The  theory  is  that  the  delegates  to  a  convention  represent  that 
part  of  the  public  whicli  marches  under  the  political  banner  of  a 
political  party.  But  Mr.  Ryan  evidently  considers  that  the  dele- 
gates to  tlie  Republican  convention  were  chosen  to  advance  his 
personal  political  ambitions. 

"The  people  do  not  mean  that  the  accidental  leaders  of  a  pri- 
mary fight  should  put  the  offices  in  their  own  pockets. 

"They  elect  delegates  as  agents  to  select  candidates  from 
among  the  people.  The  delegates  are  the  bearers  of  a  trust  and 
neither  they  nor  the  inan  who  happens  to  captain  them  in  the 
scramble  between  factions  has  a  right  to  appropriate  the  nomi- 
nations. 

"The  trust  is  not  fulfilled  if  the  primary  leader  assumes  that 
because  the  people  elected  his  primary  ticket  they  want  him  in 
office.  They  don't  want  him,  for  they  don't  want  primary  poli- 
ticians in  the  Mayor's  chair. 

"The  theory  of  any  convention  is  that  it  is  assembled  to 
choose  the  best  man  in  the  party  for  its  candidate.  The  spectacle 
of  Mr.  Dan  Ryan  holding  a  caucus  witli  himself,  and  deciding  that 
he  is  better  qualified  to  be  Mayor  of  San  Francisco  than  any  other 
man  in  the  Republican  party,  is  a  grotesque  piece  of  effrontery. 

"All  sorts  of  men  rise  to  the  top  in  primary  fights,  but  most  of 
them  have  a  sufficient  sense  of  modesty,  if  not  of  the  fitness  of 
things,  to  abstain  from  making  themselves  the  recipients  of  what 
the  delegates   have  to  give. 

"For  the  pi'imary  leader  to  appropriate  the  office  to  himself 
is  like  the  agent  of  a  charity  fund  determining  that  he  is  the  most 
worthy  object  of  the  charity  and  putting  the  money  in  his  own 
pocket." 


3o8     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

But  Ryan's  candidacy  was  not  to  be  defeated  by 
adverse  criticism.  Mr.  Ryan  had  been  largely  instru- 
mental in  selecting  the  Republican  delegates  who  were 
to- name  the  candidates.  Besides,  he  had  the  clever  sup-- 
port,  in  its  local  columns  at  least,  of  the  San  Francisco 
Call.  He  had  about  him  a  number  of  enthusiastic 
young  men  who  were  ambitiously  active  in  urging  his 
candidacy. 

"Every  time  the  Taylor  boomers  gain  a  man  they 
lose  one,"  announced  Perry  Newberry,  Secretary  of  Mr. 
Ryan's  organization,  and  Ryan's  right-hand  man.  "As 
far  as  the  Republicans  are  concerned  Daniel  A.  Ryan 
is  as  good  as  named.  It  will  be  Ryan,  not  Taylor,  who 
will  sweep  the  city." 

With  the  advocacy  of  Ryan's  candidacy,  came  quiet, 
systematic  opposition  to  the  nomination  of  Langdon. 

With  Mr.  Ryan  and  his  associates  in  control  of  the 
convention  that  was  to  nominate,  it  began  to  look  as 
though  the  victory  which  the  pro-prosecution  Republi- 
cans, under  Mr.  Ryan's  leadership,  had  won  at  the 
primaries,  was  barren  indeed. 

Among  the  Democrats,  the  opposition  to  Langdon 
and  Taylor  was  even  more  discouraging.  Langdon  had 
been  candidate  for  Governor  two  years  before  on  the 
Independence  League  ticket.  Theodore  A.  Bell  had  had 
the  Democratic  and  Union  Labor  nominations.  Bell  had 
been  defeated  by  a  plurality.  Bell  ascribed  his  defeat  to 
Langdon.  The  so-called  Bell  Democrats  accordingly 
made  this  an  excuse  for  objecting  to  Langdon. ^-^     A.s 

325  It  was  anything  to  defeat  Langdon,  even  though  a  pro- 
prosecution  attorney  be  employed  against  him.  Hiram  W.  Johnson, 
for  example,  was  suggested  as  his  opponent.  But  Johnson  let  it 
be  understood,  and  with  characteristic  positiveness,  that  under  no 
considerations  would  he  be  a  candidate  against  Langdon. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907     309 

to  Taylor,  with  the  abiHty  of  the  forces  at  work  to 
defeat  the  prosecution  considered,  opinion  gained  daily 
that  the  failure  of  the  Republican  convention  to  nomi- 
inate  Taylor,  would  be  followed  by  a  refusal  of  the 
Democrats  to  give  him  nomination. 

Thus  with  the  supporters  of  the  prosecution  over- 
whelmingly successful  at  the  Republican  and  Demo- 
cratic primaries,  there  was  grave  danger  that  their  pur- 
poses would  be  set  aside  by  political  manipulation. 

But  at  this  crisis  a  new  element  was  injected  into 
the  situation. 

Citizens  who  stood  for  enforcement  of  the  law  hasti- 
ly formed  a  non-partisan  organization  to  uphold  the 
hands  of  the  prosecution.^-'''  They  called  their  organiza- 
tion the  Good  Government  League.  Taking  for  their 
motto  "CITIZENSHIP  ABOVE  PARTISANSHIP," 
they  boldly  announced  their  support  of  Langdon  for 
District  Attorney,  and  of  Taylor  for  Mayor. 

The  attitude  of  San  Francisco  toward  the  Graft 
Prosecution  was  shown  by  the  reception  given  the  new 
organization.  Citizens  by  the  thousands  sent  in  their 
application  for  membership.  Funds  for  the  purposes  of 
the  campaign  were  forwarded  by  men  in  all  walks  of 
life. 

The  Democratic  leaders  were  the  first  to  appreciate 
the  significance  of  the  reception  given  the  new  move- 
ment. What  was  practically  a  combination  between  the 
two   forces    resulted.      This    insured   the    nomination    of 

0-6  The  members  of  the  Good  Government  League  Executive 
Committee  were:  E.  L.  Baldwin,  J.  E.  Cutten,  George  Renner, 
Gen.  Samuel  W.  Backus,  George  R.  Fletcher,  Sigmund  Bauer,  B. 
H.  Gurnette,  Frank  W.  Marvin,  Frank  W.  Gale,  L.  C.  McAfee, 
George  Uhl,  Rev.  Chas.  N.  Lathrop,  Isidor  Jacobs,  Rudolph  Spreck- 
els,   Edgar  A.    Mathews. 


3IO    The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

Langdon  and  Taylor  by  the  Democrats.  It  also  assured 
the  nomination  of  Langdon  by  the  Republicans,  for 
after  the  stand  taken  by  the  Good  Government  League, 
for  either  Republican  or  Democratic  party  to  have 
rejected  Langdon  would  have  been  an  exhibition  of 
"poor  politics."  But  Ryan  still  controlled  the  Republi- 
can convention.  The  Republican  convention  nominated 
Mr.  Ryan  for  Mayor. 

Mr.  Ryan's  nomination  was  not  accomplished  with- 
out protest.  The  citizens  who  attended  the  convention 
as  spectators  were  overwhelmingly  for  Taylor.  Taylor 
received  53  out  of  the  148  convention  votes,  95  being 
cast  for  Mr.  Ryan.  The  minority  charged  that  in  the 
nomination  of  Mr.  Ryan,  the  Republicans  of  San  Fran- 
cisco had  been  betrayed,  and  that  they  would  not  be 
bound  by  the  nomination  nor  support  the  nominee,^^^ 

The  Union  Labor  party,  following  out  its  policy  of 
opposition  to  the  prosecution,  nominated  P.  H.  McCar- 
thy 32^  for  Mayor,  and  Frank  McGowan  for  District 
Attorney. 

The  planks  of  the  several  parties  dealing  with  the 
prosecution  were  characteristic  of  the  conventions  from 
which  they  issued. 

The  Union  Labor  plank  definitely  pledged  its  candi- 
date for  District  Attorney  to  prosecution  of  the  Super- 

327  The  minority  which  voted  for  Taylor,  in  a  memorial  to  the 
convention,  charged  "that  the  majority  of  the  delegates  to  this 
convention  have  betrayed  the  confidence  reposed  in  them  by  their 
constituents"  and  gave  notice  that  it  would  not  be  bound  by  the 
nomination  of  the  convention  for  Mayor  and  would  not  support 
the  nominee,  but  would  do  all  in  its  power  to  further  the  election 
of  Dr.  Edward  R.  Taylor. 

328  The  Union  Labor  party  convention  also  had  its  sensations. 
Thomas  F.  Eagan,  for  example,  and  his  followers  bolted  the  con- 
vention because  of  McCarthy's  nomination.  The  Carmen's  Union 
refused  to  accept  the  Union  Labor  party  ticket  because  Langdon 
had  not  been   nominated  for  District  Attorney. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907     311 

visors  who  had  confessed  to  bribe-taking  although  it 
had  been  clearly  pointed  out  that  such  prosecution 
would  bar  effective  prosecution  of  those  responsible  for 
the  bribe-giving.^-^ 

329  Heney,  on  the  eve  of  election,  in  reply  to  McGowan's  argu- 
ment that  the  bribe-takers  should  be  prosecuted,  effectively  an- 
swered this  contention.  Heney's  communication  read:  "To  Frank 
McGowan,  Esq.  Sir:  You  are  reported  by  the  newspapers  as 
having  stated  that  you  will  prosecute  the  boodling  Supervisors 
and  that  you  will  also  prosecute  Patrick  Calhoun  and  the  other 
rich  bribers,  and  tliat  you  will  grant  immunity  to  no  one.  I  invite 
you  to  answer  sj^ecifically  tlie  following  questions  either  in  tlie 
newspapers  or  the  next  time  you  make  a  public  speech: 

"1.  If  you  prosecute  Supervisor  Lonergaji  (or  any  other  Super- 
visor) for  accepting  a  bribe  to  Influence  his  vote  in  the  matter  of 
tlie  trolley  franchise,  v.-hat  witness,  or  witnesses,  will  you  call  to 
prove  that  he  accepted  the  bribe? 

"2.  Every  child  in  town  now  knows  that  if  Lonergan  received 
the  money  at  all  it  was  from  Supervisor  Gallagher.  Will  you  prove 
the  fact  by  Gallagher?  If  you  call  Gallagher  as  a  witness,  how 
do  you  expect  to  induce  him  to  testify  without  granting  him 
immunity? 

"3.  "When  you  prosecute  James  L.  Gallagher  for  giving  a 
bribe  to  Tom  Lonergan  or  to  any  other  Supervisor  to  influence  his 
vote  on  the  trolley  franchise  matter,  by  what  witness  or  witnesses, 
v.'ill  you  prove  that  Gallagher  paid  the  money  to  Lonergan  or  to 
any  other  Supervisor?  Will  you  call  Lonergan  or  any  other  Super- 
visor as  a  witness,  and  when  you  call  him,  how  will  you  induce 
him  to   testify  without  granting   him   immunity? 

"4.  By  what  witness  do  you  expect  to  convict  Gallagher  of 
giving  a  bribe,  or  Tom  Lonergan,  or  any  other  Supervisor  of  ac- 
cepting a  bribe  in  tlie  matter  of  fixing  the  gas  rate,  or  in  the 
Home    Telephone    Company    franchise    matter? 

"5.  If  you  prosecute  Ruef  for  giving  money  to  Gallagher  to 
distribute  to  the  Supervisors  to  Influence  their  vote  on  tlie  trolley 
franchise,  by  what  witness,  or  witnesses,  will  you  prove  that  Ruef 
gave  the  money  to  Gallagher?  Will  you  put  Gallagher  on  the  stand 
to  prove  it,  and  if  so,  how  will  you  induce  liim  to  testify  without 
granting  him  immunity?  Will  you  put  Ford  on  the  stand  to  prove 
that  he  gave  the  money  to  Ruef,  and  if  so.  how  will  you  get  him 
to  testify  without  giving  him  immunity?  Will  you  put  Fat  Cal- 
houn on  the  stand  to  prove  that  he  gave  the  money  to  Ford  to 
give  Ruef  to  give  to  the  Supeivisors.  and  if  so,  how  will  you 
induce   Pat  to  testify  without  giving  him   immunity? 

"6.  You  say  that  you  will  prosecute  Patrick  Calhoun  for 
bribing  the  Supervisors  to  influenc-e  their  votes  in  the  matter  of 
the  trolley  franchise.  By  what  witnesses  will  you  prove  that  the 
money  was  given  to  Gallagher  or  to  any  of  the  otlier  Sujiervisors 
to  influence  their  votes  in  this  matter?  Will  you  prove  by  Ford 
that  he  gave  the  money  to  Ruef,  and  if  so,  how  will  you  induce 
Ford  to  testify  without  giving  him  immunity?  Will  you  prove  by 
Ruef  that  he  gave  tlie  money  to  Gallagher  to  distribute  to  the 
other  Supervisors,  and  if  so.  how  will  you  prove  it  by  Gallagher 
without  giving  him  immunity?  V.'ill  you  prove  by  the  other 
Supervisors  that  tliey  received  money  from  Gallagher,  and  if  so, 
how  will  you  induce  each  of  them  to  testify  without  giving  each  of 
them    immunity? 

"7.     Will  you  prosecute  Frank  G.   Drum  and  the  other  officials 


312     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

The  Republican  plank  left  the  reader  in  doubt  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  delinquent  Supervisors  were  to  be 
prosecuted.  The  Democratic  plank  alone  pledged  un- 
qualified support  to  the  prosecution  "in  any  effort  it  may 
make  to  convict  any  guilty  person."  ^^'^ 


of  the  gas  company  for  bribing  the  Supervisors  for  fixing  the  gas 
rates,  and  if  so,  how  will  you  prove  that  the  money  was  paid 
without  granting  immunity  to  Ruef  and  to  some  or  all  of  the 
Supervisors? 

"8.  Will  you  prosecute  A.  K.  Detweiler  for  bribing  the  Super- 
visors in  the  Home  Telephone  franchise  matter,  and  if  so,  how 
will  you  prove  your  case  against  him  without  granting  immunity 
to  Ruef  and  to  some  or  all  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Supervisors? 

"9.  Can  jurisdiction  be  conferred  on  a  court  by  consent,  and  if 
so,  how  could  you  proceed  with  the  Ford  trial  on  a  legal  holiday? 

"10.  If  you  found  it  necessary  to  grant  immunity  to  either  the 
bribe-taker  or  the  bribe-giver  in  the  trolley  franchise  matter  to 
prevent  an  utter  failure  of  justice  and  the  escape  of  both  the 
bribe-takers  and  the  bribe-givers,  to  which  side  will  you  recom- 
mend the  granting  of  immunity  by  the  court?  Will  you  prosecute 
the  friendless,  insignificant  Supervisors  and  grant  immunity  to  ex- 
Attorney-General  Tirey  L.  Ford  and  his  employer,  Patrick  Cal- 
houn, president  of  the  United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco,  or  will 
you  recommend  that  the  court  shall  grant  immunity  to  the  friend- 
less and  insignificant  Supervisors  in  order  to  convict  the  rich, 
powerful  and  influential  Patrick  Calhoun  and  his  general  counsel, 
Tirey  L.  Ford? 

"Yours,    etc.,  FRANCIS   J.   HENEY." 

330  The  Republican  convention  "pledged  its  party  and  its  nomi- 
nees to  assist  and  continue  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  all  persons 
guilty  of  crime,  in  whatever  walk  of  life,  high  or  low,  in  San 
Francisco,"  and  "to  Incessant  and  energetic  war  on  graft  in  every 
form,  to  the  end  that  this  plague  may  be  exterminated  from  the 
body  politic." 

The  Union  Labor  plank  on  the  Graft  Prosecution  was  as  fol- 
lows: "We  demand  the  punishment  of  all  offenders  against  the 
law,  and  we  pledge  our  nominee  for  District  Attorney  to  prosecute 
vigorously  all  bribers,  boodlers  and  grafters  without  distinction, 
and  particularly  do  we  pledge  him  to  prosecute  those  public  of- 
ficials, confessed  criminals,  who  have  been  guilty  of  the  greatest 
crime  in  the  city's  history,  but  who  have  been  permitted  to  go 
unwhipped  of  justice,  and  to  remain  outside  the  walls  of  the 
penitentiary  behind  which  they  should  now  be  imprisoned.  We 
further  pledge  our  nominee  for  District  Attorney  to  abolish  private 
prisons,  wholesale  'immunity  baths,'  and  all  other  institutions 
created  for  the  benefit  and  protection  of  criminals." 

•The  Democratic  Graft  Prosecution  plank  read:  "We  commend 
the  work  of  the  prosecution,  which  has  removed  from  public  office 
criminals  who  have  dishonored  and  debauched  our  city  and  has 
secured  convictions  that  must  be  forever  a  warning  to  official 
wrongdoers  and  those  who  participate  with  them  in  crime;  and  we 
pledge  our  support  to  the  prosecution  in  any  effort  it  may  make 
to  convict  any  guilty  person." 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907    313 

The  new  alignment  which  followed  the  clearing  of 
the  atmosphere  by  the  nomination  of  candidates,  and 
the  adoption  of  platforms,  involved  some  astonishing 
changes. 

The  Examiner,  which,  on  September  19,  preceding 
the  nominations,  had  described  Mr.  Ryan's  candidacy 
as  "a  grotesque  piece  of  effrontery,"  and  compared  him 
to  the  custodian  of  a  trust  fund  who  puts  the  money 
in  his  own  pocket,  announced  its  support  of  Mr.  Ryan 
for  Mayor.  On  October  20,  a  month  and  a  day  after 
publication  of  the  custodian-of-a-trust-fund  editorial 
article.  The  Examiner  "unhesitatingly  recommended  to 
all  the  voters  of  San  Francisco,"  Mr.  Ryan,  "as  the  man 
best  qualified  to  be  the  next  Mayor  of  the  city." 

On  the  other  hand.  The  Call,  which  was  the  first  to 
suggest  Mr.  Ryan's  candidacy,  describing  him  a  heroic 
young  "boss  buster,"  to  whom  the  Democrats  could  log- 
ically turn  for  a  mayoralty  candidate,  after  his  nomina- 
tion, described  him  as  "a  cheap  politician  itching  for 
office,"  ^^^  whose  candidacy  was  the  one  element  which 
threw  a  doubt  upon  the  election  of  Mayor  Taylor.  Fol- 
lowing the  conventions,  The  Call  supported  Taylor  as 
against  the  field. 

331  "There  never  would  have  been  doubt  anywhere  about  Tay- 
lor's successor,"  said  the  Call  In  its  issue  of  November  5,  "if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  grossly  selfish  and  unpatriotic  course  of 
Daniel  A.  Ryan.  The  one  possibility  of  McCarthy's  election  was 
opened  to  him  by  Ryan.  Failing  of  other  support,  Ryan  turned 
renegade  to  all  his  party  professions  and  went  into  an  infamous 
alliance  with  that  arch  enemy  of  Republicanism,  Hearst.  For  four 
weeks  he  has  been  scrambling  for  votes.  .  .  .  Ryan  has  fully 
revealed  himself  as  a  cheap  politician  itching  for  office.  He  lias 
boasted  of  his  youth,  and  yet  he  was  the  first  of  the  candidates 
to  break  down  and  go  to  bed.  He  has  declaimed  about  his  own 
honesty,  until  his  voice  is  in  tatters  and  has  filled  the  air  with 
promises  of  what  he  would  do  if  elected.  Never  has  he  explained 
or  attempted  to  explain  the  nature  of  those  'certain  concessions' 
that  led  him  to  nominate  himself,  although  he  knew  that  in  so 
doing  he  was  jeopardizing  the  future  of  his  city." 


314     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

The  Chronicle  tactfully  refrained  from  taking  sides 
until  after  the  nominations  were  announced.^^^  Then 
The  Chronicle  gave  support  to  Taylor.  If  the  shifting 
policy  of  the  newspapers  had  raised  a  doubt  as  to  where 
the  people  of  San  Francisco  stood  on  the  issue,  that 
doubt  was  dispelled  by  the  opening  meeting  of  the 
Taylor-Langdon  campaign.  The  largest  auditorium  in 
San  Francisco  was  packed  to  the  doors,^^^  with  citizens 

332  Said  the  Chronicle  of  Mr.  Ryan's  candidacy  in  its  issue  of 
October  3,  1907:  "The  Chronicle  has  neither  apologies  nor  regrets 
for  urging  its  readers  to  support  the  Regular  Republican  League 
movement  headed  by  Daniel  A.  Ryan.  We  believed  at  the  time,  as 
others  believed,  that  Mr.  Ryan's  sole  desire  was  good  government 
for  San  Francisco  and  that  such  desire  was  unsmirched  by  personal 
ambition.  General  confidence  in  the  sincerity  of  Mr.  Ryan  and  his 
associates  led  to  the  triumphant  election  of  the  delegates  to  the 
Republican  convention  named  and  approved  by  Mr.  Ryan,  which 
was  accepted  throughout  the  country  as  evidence  that  the  people 
of  San   Francisco   were   sound   at   heart. 

"When  we  urged  the  public  to  support  the  Ryan  primary  tickets, 
we  did  so,  not  in  the  interest  of  Mr.  Ryan,  but  in  the  interest  of 
good  government.  We  considered  Mr.  Ryan  in  the  light  of  a  useful 
and  public-spirited  citizen,  upon  whom,  in  due  time,  the  people 
would  delight  to  confer  official  honors  should  he  be  willing  to  accept 
them.  Those  who  voted  the  Ryan  ticket  at  the  primaries  did  not 
vote  for  Mr.  Ryan,  but  for  the  cause  which  he  championed.  As 
for  considering  him  a  candidate  for  Mayor,  nobody  thought  of  it. 
It  is  no  disparagement  to  a  young  man  like  Mr.  Ryan  to  say  that  as 
yet  he  has  no  such  standing  in  the  community  as  justifies  him  in 
aspiring    to    such    an    honor." 

In  its  issue  of  October  5  the  Chronicle  said:  "The  moral  col- 
lapse of  Daniel  A.  Ryan  is  deeply  regretted  by  every  lover  of  San 
Francisco.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  the  rise  or  fall  of  one  man.  It  is 
a  question  of  whether  the  people  will  ever  again  trust  any  man 
who  appears  as  a  leader  of  reform.  Fev/  men  ever  get  such  an 
opportunity  as  Mr.  Ryan  has  thrown  away.  Doubtless  the  lesson 
is  for  the  people  never  again  to  trust  an  unknown  man.  It  is 
not  too  much  to  ask  of  any  aspirant  to  leadership  on  an  im- 
portant scale  that  he  shall  have  some  recoi-d  of  honorable  achieve- 
ment of  some  kind  as  an  earnest  of  what  to  expect  of  him  should 
the  confidence  reposed  in  him  place  him  in   a  position  of  pov^^er." 

333  The  Call,  in  speaking  of  the  Taylor-Langdon  meeting  said: 
"Young  Mr.  Ryan  ought  to  have  been  at  that  meeting.  We  have 
nothing  against  Mr.  Ryan  except  that  he  is  not  the  man  of  the 
hour.  We  shall  not  even  reproach  him  with  his  youth.  That  is  not 
his  fault  and  he  will  get  over  that.  But  he  is  not  the  man  of  the 
hour.  The  people  have  said  it.  Mr.  Ryan  embodies  no  principle. 
To  the  people  of  San  Francisco  he  means  nothing  in  particular  at 
this  critical  time.  He  might  have  read  that  message  in  the  mighty 
roar  that  went  up  from  the  meeting  in  welcome  of  Dr.  Taylor. 
Mayor  Taylor  stands  for  something,  stands  for  much.  Mr.  Ryan 
has  only  his  own  ambition  and  a  certain  command  of  language." 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907     315 

whose  one  purpose,  expressed  by  approving  cheers 
every  time  the  subject  was  mentioned,  was  support  of 
the  prosecution  which  had  broken  up  the  Schmitz-Ruef 
organization,  and  which  bade  fair  to  bring  to  book  the 
corrupters  of  the  municipal  government. 

The  meeting  was  thoroughly  representative.  Labor 
touched  elbows  v.'ith  capital.  Among  the  speakers  were 
representative  Labor  Union  leaders,  who  had  definitely 
broken  with  the  Union  Labor  party. 

"It  is  inconceivable  to  me,"  said  Walter  Macarthur, 
one  of  the  organizers  of  the  Union  Labor  party,  in  a 
ringing  address,  "that  any  honest  thinking  labor  man 
would  stand  for  the  proposition  that  those  men  who 
have  debauched  the  officials  of  our  city  should  go  scot 
free  while  the  victims  of  their  cupidity  be  sent  behind 
the  prison  bars  alone.  I  believe  that  labor  will  join 
with  all  honest  people  in  declaring  that  if  the  corrupt 
bribe-taker  is  punished  the  man  who  is  at  the  head  of 
this  corruption  must  be  punished  also.  That  is  the 
issue  of  this  campaign  and  I  believe  that  election  day 
will  prove  the  virtue  of  my  faith." 

That  the  contest  for  the  District  Attorney's  office 
overshadowed  in  importance  the  mayoralty  fight  was 
fully  recognized.  The  Union  Labor  party,  which  had 
nominated  and  elected  Langdon  in  1905,  had  repudi- 
ated him,  and  named  Frank  McGowan  as  Langdon's 
only  serious  opponent.  The  Republicans  and  Democrats, 
who  had  under  a  fusion  arrangement  in  1905  opposed 
Langdon's  election ;  united,  in  1907,  to  fight  for  his 
continuance  in  office.  The  public  service  corporations, 
especially  those  whose  officials  were  under  indictment, 
generally    opposed    Mr.    Langdon's    election,    and    sup- 


3i6    The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

ported  the  candidacy  of  his  Union  Labor  party  opponent. 

This  was  particularly  astonishing  in  the  case  of  the 
United  Railroads,  whose  president,  Mr.  Patrick  Cal- 
houn, was  even  then  posing  as  a  "labor  union  buster," 
while  the  United  Railroads  was  very  effectively  grind- 
ing  to   pieces    the    San    Francisco    Carmen's    Union.  ^^* 

Nevertheless,  there  was  certain  consistency  in  the 
political  course  taken  by  the  United  Railroads.  What- 
ever the  differences  President  Calhoun,  in  his  role  as 
a  "union  buster,"  may  have  had  with  the  labor  union, 
there  was  much  in  common  between  him  and  the  San 
Francisco  Union  Labor  party  as  headed  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Carthy.^^^  President  Calhoun  and  his  company  opposed 
the  prosecution  vigorously.  Mr.  McCarthy  and  his 
party  went  quite  as  far  in  this  opposition.  President 
Calhoun  was  most  emphatic  in  his  denunciation  of  those 
who  had  made  the  graft  prosecution  possible.  Mr. 
McCarthy  was  scarcely  less  emphatic  in  his  denuncia- 
tion. Indeed,  Mr.  McCarthy  opened  his  campaign  with 
an  attack  upon  the  graft  prosecution.  Inasmuch  as 
the  one  issue  before  the  people  was  the  continuance  oi 
the  graft  prosecution  along  the  lines  that  had  proved 
so  distasteful  to  Mr.  Calhoun  and  those  in  the  same 
predicament  as  himself,  the  support  of  the  Union  Labor 


334  The  San  Francisco  Call,  in  its  issue  of  November  5,  charged 
that  orders  had  gone  out  from  the  United  Railroads  to  "vote  for 
McCarthy  and  the  Union  Labor  ticket — straight."  In  the  cars 
of  the  United  Railroads  appeared  dodgers  which  read:  "V^''orking- 
men.  Workingmen — Are  you  going  to  put  a  big  stick  into  Spreckels' 
hands  to  club  you  over  the  head  with?" 

335  The  same  is  true  of  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  which  has  a 
national  reputation  as  an  opponent  of  organized  labor.  The  Times, 
while  at  issue  with  Mr.  McCarthy  on  the  question  of  the  desii-ability 
of  unions,  was  scarcely  less  vehement  than  he  In  denunciation  of 
the  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907     317 

party  candidate  for  District  Attorney  by  a  union-labor- 
busting  corporation  was  not   entirely   inconsistent. 

And  yet,  Mr.  McGowan,  the  Union  Labor  party 
candidate,  definitely  pledged  himself  to  continue  the 
prosecution,  but  he  promised  that  the  prosecution  which 
he  would  carry  on  should  not  "disturb  business,"  that 
Heney  ^^^  should  no  longer  be  retained  as  special  pros- 
ecutor, that  the  Supervisors  who  had  confessed  to 
bribe-giving  should  be  prosecuted  ^'^  as  well  as  those 
who  had  given  bribes. 

This  last  was  one  of  the  chief  arguments  advanced 
in  support  of  Mr.  McGowan's  candidacy.  On  the 
ground  that  a  mistake  had  been  made,  if  a  wrong  had 
not  been  done,  when  the  Supervisors  were  granted  im- 
munity,^^^  it  was  urged  that  Mr.  Langdon  should  not 
be  continued  in  the  District  Attorney's  office. 

336  One  of  the  allegations  made  against  Heney  was  that  he 
would  not  prosecute  Patrick  Calhoun,  because  Heney's  brother-in- 
law  was  employed  by  Calhoun  as  a  detective.  This  argument  was 
intended  to  weaken  Heney  and  the  prosecution  with  the  union  ele- 
ment that  Calhoun  was  endeavoring  to  crush. 

337  In  a  political  advertisement  which  appeared  in  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Call  November  3,  1907,  Mr.  McGowan  said:  "If  elected  Dis- 
trict Attorney  I  will  prosecute  every  man  accused  of  crime,  regard- 
less of  his  position  in  life.  I  will  continue  the  present  graft  prose- 
cution with  more  vigor,  and  the  District  Attorney's  office  will  not 
be  used  for  politics,  nor  to  disturb  business.  I  will  be  the  District 
Attorney  in  law  and  in  fact,  and  I  will  never  allow  any  man  or 
set  of  men  to  control  the  ofRce  for  any  purpose.  I  will  honorably 
enforce  the  law  without  the  aid  of  any  millionaire's  money." 

338  Langdon,  at  the  opening  of  the  Republican  campaign,  took 
up  the  question  of  the  prosecution's  policy  in  granting  Immunity 
to  the  Supervisors.     He  said: 

"In  this  prosecution  we  have  tried  to  be  practical,  to  be 
effective.  What  would  you  have  said  if  we  had  made  a  scapegoat 
of  a  petty  criminal  and  let  the  giants  go?  What  would  you  have 
said  if  in  all  this  graft  and  corruption  we  had  arrested  and  jailed 
two  or  three  obscure  Supervisors  you  had  never  heard  of  before 
they  came  to  office,  and  will  never  hear  of  them  again  now  that 
they  are  retired  to  private  life,  and  had  let  escape  the  giants  In 
crime? 

"There  have  been  graft  exposures  before  in  the  history  of 
American  municipalities  and  the  graft  has  gone  on.  And  it  was 
bound  to  go  on  so  long  as  the  prosecutions  failed  to  stop  the  sources 


3i8     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907 

The  election  returns  ^^^  were  conclusive  of  San 
Francisco's  attitude  on  the  several  issues  raised.  Taylor 
was  elected  Mayor,  with  a  clear  majority  of  415  over 
all  his  competitors.  Langdon's  majority  over  all  com- 
petitors, including  the  Socialist  candidate,  was  13,510, 
his  plurality  over  McGowan  being   14,808.     And  with 

of  evil,  to  gather  into  the  fold  of  the  penitentiary  the  corrupt 
men  of  business  and  the  corrupt  political  leaders  who  have  dared 
to  use  weak  men  for  their  own  ends.  These  giants  in  crime  are 
perfectly  willing  that  the  physical  life  of  the  weak  men  they  use 
shall  be  fed  into  the  jails  of  the  State  to  appease  public  wrath 
exactly  as  they  have  been  willing  to  use  up  the  moral  life  of  these 
men  to  satisfy  their  own  greedy  needs  in  the  Board  of  Supervisors. 
Profiting  by  the  mistakes  of  previous  prosecutions,  this  office  has 
struck  straight  at  the  very  roots  of  public  graft:  at  the  crooked 
public  service  corporations;  but  which  of  the  criminals  were  to  be 
allowed  to  give  evidence  for  the  State  and  enjoy  its  alluring  pro- 
tection; the  giants  of  crime  who  have  always  been  most  responsible 
and  who  have  always  escaped  or  the  petty,  miserable  fellows  who 
have  entered  upon  these  things  through  ignorance  and  weakness? 

"Immunity  had  to  be  given  in  order  that  crime  might  be  punished 
and  it  was  given  to  the  Supervisors  that  the  very  tap  roots  of 
political  corruption  might  be  torn  from  the  soil  in  which  they 
thrived.  We  did  it  because  this  prosecution  has  a  moral  as  well 
as  a  legal  significance.  It  is  time  to  stop  the  cynicism  of  common 
men  when  they  view  democracy  and  say  it  is  for  the  powerful  and 
the  rich;  that  the  poor  must  go  to  jail  for  the  theft  of  bread  and 
the  rich  escape  for  tlie  theft  of  privilege,  the  purchase  of  men's 
souls  and  the  degradation  of  government.  It  is  time  to  stop  the 
brazen  and  confident  effrontery  of  the  irresponsible  criminal  rich, 
who  commit  crimes  and  rest  back,  thinking  they  can  buy  judges 
as  they  bought  legislators  and  executives,  and  knowing  they  can 
buy  legal  talent  to  interpose  every  technicality  in  every  courtroom 
until  justice  is  a  human   travesty  tangled   in  its  own  web. 

"We  are  after  the  'men  higher  up'  because  they  are  the  severest 
menace  to  our  institutions,  the  enduring  factors  that  program  and 
bribe  each  Board  of  Supervisors  as  they  come  and  go.  We  are 
after  the  'men  higher  up'  so  as  to  make  criminal  acquisition  un- 
profitable in  terms  of  human  desire.  We  are  after  the  'men 
higher  up'  so  that  young  men  and  women  growing  up  in  this  and 
other  communities  will  once  inore  believe  with  ardent  fei-vor  not 
only  that  dishonesty  does  not  pay,  but  that  of  all  the  goods  on 
this    earth    the    greatest    treasure    is    a    straightforward    life." 

339  The  vote  for  Mayor  and  for  District  Attorney  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

For  Mayor — 

Taylor  28,766 

Rvan    9,255 

McCarthy   17,583 

Reguin    (Soc.) 1,503 

For  District  Attorney — 

Langdon     34,923 

McGowan     20,115 

Kirk    (Soc.) 1,298 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1907    319 

the  election  of  Taylor  and  Langdon  ^*°  were  elected  all 
the  Good  Government  League  candidates  for  Super- 
visors. 

The  Graft  Prosecution  had  successfully  passed  an- 
other crisis.  It  had,  too,  received  overwhelming  en- 
dorsement of  The  People  at  the  polls. 


340  In  commenting  upon  the  outcome  of  the  election,  the  Ex- 
aminer, in  its  issue  of  November  6,  said:  "And  this  revolt  of  union 
labor  against  misrepresentation  in  office  began  long  ago.  Before 
the  primaries,  when  inost  of  the  registering  was  done,  It  was  ob- 
served that  the  number  of  Republicans  recorded  was  far  in  excess 
of  the  adherents  of  union  labor.  The  story  was  told  then.  Dis- 
gusted with  the  dishonesty  of  the  men  they  had  placed  in  office, 
finding  the  local  Democratic  party  a  mere  memory,  they  registered 
as  Republicans  because  they  were  determined  to  vote  against  the 
representatives  of  Ruef  and  Schmitz  who  had  captured  their  or- 
ganization. 

"Langdon's  majority  will  surprise  no  orle.  His  election  was  a 
matter  of  course,  for  union  labor,  like  all  other  decent  elements  in 
the  community,  was  determined  to  sustain  the  prosecution  of  the 
grafters. 

"The  swing  of  union  labor  to  Taylor  will  surprise  the  gentlemen 
who  have  been  so  fond  of  assuming  that  the  working  people  would 
vote  as  a  class  regardless  of  principle.  The  fact  that  they  set  aside 
all  class  feeling,  all  personal  preference,  and  rolled  up  a  big  ma- 
jority in  favor  of  the  man  considered  most  likely  to  defeat  the 
zebra-striped  bandits  who  had  captured  their  organization  proves 
that  government  in  America  is  safe  in  the  hands  of  the  plain  people. 

"It  is  union  labor,  and  union  labor  chiefly,  which  has  saved  San 
Francisco   from   McCarthy  and   McGowan." 

"Yesterday,"  said  the  Chronicle  the  morning  after  the  election, 
"was  a  great  day  for  San  Francisco.  It  was  the  turn  of  the  tide. 
It  was  the  beginning  of  the  ascent  to  nobler  ideals  and  better 
days.  The  passions  of  the  conflict  will  soon  die  away.  With  an 
honest  government  assured,  capital  will  not  shun  us  but  seek 
us.  And  we  can  look  back  on  the  events  of  the  last  six  years  as 
we  remember  a  nightmare  from  which  we  awake  to  find  ourselves 
In  security  and  peace." 

"The  indicted  bribe-givers,"  said  the  Call,  "may  as  well  make 
up  their  minds  that  there  is  no  way  of  escape  for  them  except 
through  trial  and  by  the  verdicts  of  the  juries.  The  people  have 
spoken  and  they  have  said  that  the  clean-up  must  be  thorough. 
The  sweeping  success  of  Langdon  means  that  the  prosecution  of 
the  grafters  will  be  pressed  to  its  fitting  conclusion  upon  the  facts 
and  under  the  law.  There  need  be  no  delay  now.  Soon  all  the 
cases  should  be  settled  and  another  chapter  added  to  the  history 
of  San  Francisco — a  chapter  in  which  will  have  been  written  the 
means,  the  manner  and  tlie  fullness  of  our  atonement  for  Schmitz- 
Ruef  chapter  just  before  it,  the  vindication  of  the  city's  good  name." 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef. 

On  January  8,  1908,  the  municipal  officials  elected 
with  Mayor  Taylor  assumed  the  duties  of  their  office. 
That  day,  Ruef  was  taken  from  the  custody  of  the 
elisor  and  locked  up  in  the  county  jail.  In  the  jail  with 
him  were  Schmitz,  convicted  of  the  extortion  charge 
to  which  Ruef  had  pleaded  guilty,  and  Glass,  who  had 
been  convicted  of  bribery. 

The  following  day,  January  9,  the  Appellate  Court, 
for  the  First  District,  handed  down  a  decision  in  the 
Schmitz  extortion  case,  which,  later  sustained  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  unlocked  the  prison  doors  not  only  for 
Schmitz,  but  for  Ruef  also.^*^ 

The  decision  was  the  first  serious  setback  in  the 
graft  cases  that  District  Attorney  Langdon's  office  had 
received. 

The  prosecution  had  prevented  Ruef  seizing  the 
District  Attorney's  office ;  had  defeated  the  efforts  of 
the  defense  to  have  the  indicting  Grand  Jury  declared 
an  invalid  body ;  had  overcome  the  resistance  of  the 
defendants   to    facing  trial   jurors;   had,   after   meeting 


341  The  opinion  was  written  by  Justice  Cooper  and  concurred 
in  by  Justices  Hall  and  Kerrigan.  This  is  the  same  Kerrigan  who 
appears  in  the  Santa  Cruz  banquet  scene  picture,  in  which  Ruef 
occupies  the  position  of  honor  with  the  Republican  nominee  for 
Governor,  J.  M.  Gillett,  standing  at  his  back  with  hand  resting  on 
Ruef's  shoulder.     (See  Chapter  IV.) 

Supreme  Justice  Henshaw,  whose  sensational  action  in  Ruef's 
favor  will  appear  in  another  chapter,  is  also  one  of  the  Santa  Cruz 
banquet  group. 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  321 

the  clever  opposition  of  the  best  legal  talent  obtainable 
for  money,  forced  trials  before  juries  and  secured  con- 
victions ;  and  finally,  the  prosecution  had  met  the  de- 
fense before  the  larger  jury  of  The  People,  and,  at 
the  polls,  had  won  again.  But,  with  a  stroke  of  the 
pen,  the  Appellate  Court  swept  aside  the  greater  part 
of  the  accomplishment  of  fifteen-months  struggle 
against  corruption.  The  court  found  the  indictment 
under  which  Schmitz  had  been  convicted  of  extortion 
to  be  insufficient  and  ordered  the  defendant  to  be  dis- 
charged as  to  the  indictment. 

In  as  much  as  Ruef,  Schmitz's  co-defendant,  in- 
dicted jointly  with  him  for  extortion,  had  plead  guilty 
to  the  same  indictment  as  that  under  which  Schmitz 
had  been  convicted,  the  effect  of  the  decision  was  to 
free  Ruef  as  well  as  Schmitz. 

Before  passing  upon  the  _  sufficiency  of  the  indict- 
ment, the  court  took  occasion  to  deal  with  the  points 
of  error  as  raised  by  the  defense.  On  five  principal 
points  the  court  found  that  error  had  been  commit- 
ted.^*- On  this  showing,  the  case  could  have  been  sent 
back  to  the  Superior  Court  for  re-trial.  In  that  event, 
Ruef's  status  would  not  have  been  affected.     But  the 


342  The  Appellate  Court  enumerated  the  following  errors  at  the 
trial: 

(1)  That  the  trial  court  erred  in  allowing  the  peremptory  chal- 
lenge of  a  juror  after  he  had  been  sworn  to  try  the  case;  and  the 
removal,  after  he  had  been  sworn,  of  a  second  juror  without  cause. 

(2)  That  error  was  committed  in  the  appointment  of  the  elisor 
that  had  charge  of  the  jury. 

(3)  That  the  court  erred  in  admitting  hearsay  evidence  of  wit- 
nesses. Loupe,   Blanco,   Malfanti,   Debret  and  Rosenthal. 

(4)  That  error  was  committed  when  Schmitz  was  required,  under 
cross-examination,  to  answer  question  as  to  v.iietb.er  he  had  re- 
ceived from  Ruef  part  of  the  money  extorted  from  the  French 
restaurant  keepers. 

(5)  That  Ruef's  testimony  that  he  had  divided  the  money  with 
Schmitz  was  not  proper  rebuttal  evidence. 

11 


322  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

court  went  back  of  the  trial  to  the  indictment,  on  points 
raised  in  the  defendant's  demurrer,  found  for  the  de- 
fendant, and  held  the  indictment  to  be  insufficient. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  decision  which  followed, 
criticism  was  confined  almost  exclusively  to  the  court's 
rulings  on  the  sufficiency  of  the  indictment.  The  point 
raised  was  that  the  indictment  did  not  state  facts  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  any  public  offense  had  been  com- 
mitted. 

The  court  held  in  effect  that  the  facts  presented 
did  not,  under  the  definitions  of  the  California  codes, 
constitute  the  crime  of  extortion. 

In  the  California  Penal  Code  ^*^  extortion  is  defined 
as  "the  obtaining  of  property  from  another,  with  his 
consent,  induced  by  a  wrongful  use  of  force,  or  fear 
or  under  color  of  official  right."  The  section  follow- 
ing ^**  defines  "Fear  such  as  will  constitute  extortion 
may  be  induced  by  a  threat  either:  (1)  to  do  an  unlaw- 
ful injury  to  the  person  or  property  of  the  individual 
threatened,  or  to  any  relative  of  his,  or  member  of  his 
family." 

The  court  found  that  the  threat  which  induced  the 
fear  in  the  Schmitz-Ruef  extortion  cases,  was  a  threat 
to  prevent  the  parties  from  obtaining  a  liquor  license, 
and  thus  to  prevent  them  from  carrying  on  the  busi- 
ness of  selling  wines  and  liquors  at  retail.  A  license 
to  sell  liquor,  the  court  showed,  is  not  property  in  the 
ordinary   sense  of  the   word,^*^  but   a  mere  permission, 

343  California  Penal  Code,  Sec.  518. 

344  California  Penal  Code,  Sec.  519. 

345  The  general  feeling  regarding  the  Schmitz  decision  was  well 
expressed  by  Attorney  J.  C.  Hutchinson,  in  a  letter  to  Justice 
Cooper.     The  letter  follows: 

"Hon.  James  A.  Cooper,  Presiding  Justice  of  the  District  Court 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  323 

and  the  license  is  but  the  evidence  that  the  permission 
has  been  given  by  the  proper  authorities.  "There  is 
grave  doubt,"  ^**''  the  court  held,  "as  to  whether  a  threat 
to  prevent  a  party  from  obtaining  a  permission  or 
license  by  one  who  has  no  authority  in  the  premises,  is 
a  threat  to  injure  property  within  the  meaning  of  the 
sections  quoted." 

But  the  court  found  it  unnecessary  to  decide  this 
question,  for  the  reason  it  held  the  indictment  insuffi- 
cient "because  it  does  not  allege  nor  show  that  the 
specific  injury  threatened  was  an  unlawful  injury."  ^*^ 

of  Appeals,  First  District,  1420  Sutter  street,  city.  Dear  Sir:  Yours 
of  the  15th  inst.  received.  I  did  not  expect  you  to  reply  to  mine  of 
the  13th  inst.,  which  was  more  in  the  nature  of  an  ejaculatory  pro- 
test than  a  letter.  Nevertheless,  I  think  you  are  right  to  reply,  espe- 
cially as  I  know  you  have  replied  to  letters  complimenting  you  on 
the  same  decision. 

"I  have  never  before  written  a  letter  to  a  judge  commenting  upon 
a  decision  in  which  he  had  taken  part,  and  I  ordinarily  would  con- 
sider such  a  course  highly  unprofessional.  During  twenty-flve  years' 
practice,  I  have  always  remained  silent  in  the  face  of  decisions, 
however  adverse,  even  in  some  cases  where  I  was  perfectly  well 
aware  that  improper  influences  behind  the  scenes  had  prevented  me 
from  obtaining  justice.  But  in  this  case  the  situation  is  different 
from  anything  I  have  ever  experienced.  The  very  air  seems  to  be 
full  of  revolutionary  feeling.  At  the  universities,  clubs,  in  the 
trains,  on  the  streets  and  in  the  home,  I  find  no  one  (except  the 
friends,  connections  and  lawyers  of  the  grafters)  speak  with  any- 
thing but  emphatic  protest  against  this  decision  so  far  as  it  re- 
lates to  the  validity  of  the  indictment. 

"I  have  cast  no  personal  reflection  upon  yourself.  The  attack 
is  upon  the  atmospheric  environment  of  a  statement  whicli  could 
lead  a  man  of  your  integrity  and  intelligence  honestly  to  believe 
that  such  a  decision  could  be  correct;  and  if  the  Supreme  Court 
should  unanimously  hold  the  same,  that  would,  according  to  my 
view,  only  make  the  matter  so  much  the  worse. 

"Very  respectfully   yours,  J.   C.    HUTCHINSON." 

346  See   7  Cal.  App.   Reports,   page   330. 

347  The  Court,  in  discussing  this  point,  said:  "The  indictment 
does  use  the  words  'unlawful  injury'  in  the  first  part  of  it;  but 
when  the  facts  are  specifically  set  forth  as  to  what  the  defend- 
ants threatened  to  do  we  find  that  the  threat  was  that  defendants 
'would  prevent  the  said  Joseph  Malfanti,  Charles  Kelb  and  William 
Lafrenz  from  receiving  said  license  or  obtaining  the  same.'  There 
is  no  allegation  that  any  unlawful  act  was  threatened,  and  the 
attorneys  for  the  prosecution  frankly  admit  that  they  rely  upon 
the  fact  that  the  defendants  obtained  the  money  by  threatening 
to    do    an   injury,    which    they   claim   was   unlawful   solely   for    the 


324  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

To  the  man  on  the  street,  the  reading  of  the  opinion 
conveyed  the  impression  at  least,  that  according  to  the 
Appellate  Court,  when  Schmitz  had  shown  his  power 
to  prevent  the  French  Restaurants  getting  their  licenses, 
thus  endangering  investments  valued  as  high  as  $400,- 
000,  and  Ruef  because  of  the  fear  engendered  by  this 
showing,  acting  with  Schmitz,  had  secured  large  sums 
of  money  from  the  enterprises  thus  threatened,  the 
crime  of  extortion  had  not  been  committed. 


reason  that  the  threats  were  made  with  intent  to  extort  money. 
In  other  words,  it  is  claimed  that  even  though  the  French-restau- 
rant proprietors  v/ere  violating  the  law,  and  conducting  immoral 
places  used  as  resorts  by  lewd  women,  and  thus  not  legally  entitled 
to  a  license  to  sell  liquor,  a  threat  to  prevent  the  issuance  of 
licenses  to  such  places  by  laying  the  facts  before  the  Board  of 
Police  Commissioners  in  a  legal  manner,  constitutes  a  crime  if  such 
threat  was  made  with  the  intent  to  extort  money.  Such,  in  our 
opinion,  is  not  the  law.  The  statute  uses  the  words  that  the  threat 
must  be  to  do  'an  unlawful  injury';  and  in  order  to  charge  a  crime 
the  indictment  must  aver  in  some  way  that  the  threat  was  to 
do  an  unlawful  injury.  It  is  apparent  from  the  language  of  the 
statute  which  we  have  hereinbefore  quoted,  that  it  is  not  every 
kind  of  fear  that  will  support  a  charge  of  extortion  because  of 
property  obtained  thereby.  The  fear  must  be  induced  by  one  of 
the  threats  enumerated  in  the  statute.  The  Legislature  has  seen 
fit  to  provide  that  the  threatened  injury  to  property  upon  which 
a  charge  of  extortion  may  be  predicated  must  be  an  unlawful  in- 
jury to  property.  That  is,  the  injury  threatened  must  be,  in  itself, 
unlawful,  irrespective  of  the  purpose  with  which  the  threat  is 
made.  As  the  word  'unlawful'  is  used  in  the  statute  it  qualifies  the 
'injury'  and  not  the  'threat.'  Unlawful  means  contrary  to  law. 
It  is  true  that  from  a  high  standard  of  ethics  it  could  not  be 
claimed  that  one  could  extort  money  by  a  threat  to  do  a  lawful 
act,  if  the  intent  was  to  get  money  by  the  use  of  the  threat,  but 
every  wrong  is  not  made  a  crime.  There  are  many  wrongs  done 
every  day  that  are  not  enumerated  in  the  category  of  crimes 
contained  in  the  Penal  Code  that  are  of  much  more  serious  conse- 
quence in  their  nature  than  others  which  are  defined  therein;  but 
we  must  look  to  the  statute  to  find  whether  or  not  an  act  is  a 
public  offense  for  which  a  prosecution  will  lie.  To  procure  prop- 
erty from  others  by  a  mere  threat  to  do  a  lawful  act  is  not  a 
crime.  The  object  of  the  statute — or  at  least  one  of  its  objects — 
is  to  protect  the  party  from  whom  the  property  is  extorted; 
and  if  such  party  pays  the  money  in  order  to  secure  protection  in 
violating  the  law  himself  he  cannot  be  lieard  to  complain.  He  in 
such  case  would  be  a  party  to  the  violation  of  the  law.  In  this 
case,  if  the  parties  as  a  fact  paid  the  money  in  order  to  prevent 
the  evidence  as  to  the  character  of  places  they  kept  from  being 
exposed  to  the  Board  of  Police  Commissioners,  they  are  not  in  a 
position  to  complain." 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  325 

The  decision  was  received  with  protest  '*^  and  de- 
nunciation. The  Call  dubbed  it  "bad  law,  bad  logic 
and  bad  morals."  "Any  ordinary  intelligence,"  said  The 
Examiner,  "would  construe  the  threat  to  take  away  a 
license  to  sell  liquor  from  a  restaurant  unless  a  certain 
sum  of  money  was  paid  as  the  plainest  kind  of  extor- 
tion." 

"When,"  said  Dr.  William  Rader  of  Calvary  Pres- 
byterian church,  in  a  sermon  preached  on  the  evening 
of  the  Sunday  after  the  decision  was  made  public,  Jan- 
uary 12,  1908,  "extortion  is  not  a  crime,  when  bribery 
is  not  even  a  wrong,  when  a  confessed  felon  can  learn 
that  he  is  really  righteous,  and  that  his  trial,  confession 
and  conviction   have   all  been  nothing^  but   a  mistake — 


348  The  Examiner,  in  its  issue  of  January  11,  1908,  said  of  the 
decision: 

"The  District  Court  of  Appeal  has  overturned  the  conviction 
of  Mayor  Schniitz  on  the  ground  that  threatening  to  prevent  the 
French-restaurant  lieepers  from  getting  a  license  to  sell  liquor 
does  not  constitute  the  crime  of  extortion,  with  which  he  is 
charged.  This  is  one  of  the  decisions  that  will  aggravate  the  dis- 
satisfaction of  the  public  with  the  courts. 

"Abe  Ruef,  once  political  boss  of  San  Francisco,  testified  that 
he  had  divided  with  the  Mayor  the  'fees'  for  getting  the  licenses 
which  Schmitz  had  held  up  until  the  money  was  paid.  'A  license 
to  sell  liquor  is  not  property  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word,' 
declares  the  court,  making  the  point  that  the  indictment  'does  not 
allege  any  threat  to  injure  property.' 

"Any  ordinary  intelligence  would  construe  the  threat  to  take 
away  a  license  to  sell  liquor  from  a  restaurant  unless  a  certain 
sum  of  money  was  paid  as  the  plainest  kind  of  extortion,  par- 
ticularly when  the  Mayor  was  shown  to  have  shared  in  the  money 
thus  exacted,  and  the  fact  that  the  contrary  ruling  of  a  court  acts 
as  a  release  of  a  man  whose  guilt  was  clearly  established,  will  not 
change  that  view." 

"Even  the  lay  mind,"  said  the  Call,  "is  competent  to  reach 
the  conclusion  that  this  decision  is  bad  law,  bad  logic  and  bad 
morals." 

The  decision  was  generally  condemned  by  the  interior  press. 
The  Sacramento  Bee  denounced  it  as  a  "palpable  evasion  of  jus- 
tice." The  Oakland  Enquirer  stated  that  it  came  as  a  "shock  and 
a  surprise  to  the  law-respecting  people  of  California  and  of  the 
entire  country."  "San  Francisco  in  particular,"  said  the  Los 
Angeles  Evening  News,  "California  in  general  and  the  republic  at 
large  have  suffered  great  wrong  by  reason  of  ttiis  reprehensible 
decision." 


326  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

a  slight  mistake — I  repeat  that  however  correct  this 
may  be  legally  and  ethically,  it  has  the  effect  of  making 
us  stand  amazed  at  the  rapid  revolutions  of  the  legal 
wheels.  Perhaps  tomorrow  we  shall  learn  that  this  last 
decision  has  been  a  mistake,  too.  I  hope  so;  I  believe 
so." 

"We  of  this  city,"  said  Rev.  Dr.  Evans  at  Grace 
Episcopal  Cathedral,  "are  dumfounded  by  a  judicial 
pronouncement  which  enables  the  high  officials  of  our 
city  to  rob  and  plunder  without  any  technical  breaking 
of  the  law.  It  is  enough — such  an  audacious  mockery 
of  the  first  principles  of  common  sense — to  justify  the 
appointment  of  a  lunacy  commission  to  inquire  into  the 
sanity  of  men  who  could  formulate  such  a  judgment 
and  it  ought  to  provoke  an  explosion  of  righteous 
indignation  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other. 
We  need  not  hesitate  to  declare  that  such  an  opinion 
as  this  has  its  inspiration  in  that  place  where  public 
sentiment  without  a  single  dissenting  note  would  give 
it  its  unanimous  approval." 

The  decision  did  not  immediately  release  Ruef  and 
Schmitz.  The  prosecution  had  still  an  appeal  to  the 
Supreme  Court  for  a  re-hearing  and,  pending  such  an 
appeal,  the  defendants  remained  behind  the  bars.  This 
delay  annoyed  those  interested  in  seeing  the  graft 
defendants  go  free.  Stories  were  circulated  that  the 
prosecution  would  not  appeal.  But  the  prosecution  did 
appeal.  Three  months  later,  the  Supreme  Court  ren- 
dered its  decision.**'* 

The  decision  was  against  the  prosecution. 

349  See    California    Appellate    Reports,    in    which    the    Supreme 
Court  decision  is  printed,  Vol.  No.  7,  Page  369. 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  327 

"The  (Supreme)  court  is  unanimous  in  the  opin- 
ion," the  decision  read,  "that  the  District  Court  of  Ap- 
peal was  correct  in  its  conclusion  that  the  indictment 
was  insufficient,  in  that  it  did  not  show  that  the  specific 
injury  to  the  property  of  the  restaurant-keepers  threat- 
ened by  the  defendant  was  an  'unlawful  injury.'  " 

The  Supreme  Court  went  a  step  further  than  the 
Appellate  Court  had  done  and  attacked  the  indictment 
on  the  ground  that  it  had  not  set  forth  that  Schmitz 
was  Mayor  at  the  time  of  the  alleged  extortion,  nor 
that  Ruef  was  a  political  boss  practically  in  control  of 
the  municipal  government. 

The  prosecution  in  its  application  for  a  rehearing 
had  set  forth  that  "it  will  be  found  and  decided  by  this 
court  that  levying  blackmail  upon  licensed  businesses 
by  the  Mayor  and  the  political  boss  of  a  metropolitan 
community  is  a  crime  under  the  law  of  California  and 
should  not  go  unwhipped  of  justice." 

This  observation  was  denounced  in  the  Supreme 
Court's  decision  as  "a  gross  misstatement  of  the  case 
and  of  the  question  to  be  decided  as  presented  by  the 
indictment." 

"We  again  emphasize  the  fact,"  reads  the  opinion, 
"that  the  indictment  does  not  aver  that  Schmitz  was 
Mayor,  or  that  Ruef  was  a  political  boss,  or  that  either 
of  them  had  any  power,  or  influence,  or  control  over 
the  Police  Commissioners,  or  that  they  threatened  to 
use  such  power,  influence  or  control  in  preventing  the 
issuance  of  a  license." 

The  storm  of  protest  with  which  this  opinion  was 
received  was  even  greater  than  that  which  followed  the 
Appellate  Court  decision.     Once  more  did  press,  pulpit 


328  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

and  public,  from  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other, 
join  in  expression  of  indignation. 

The  court  in  return  insisted  that  it  was  misrepre- 
sented and  misunderstood.  Chief  Justice  W.  H.  Beatty 
essayed  the  task  of  writing  an  explanation  of  the 
ruling,  that  "the  man  on  the  street"  might  understand. 

The  Chief  Justice's  article  appeared  in  the  Sacra- 
mento Bee  of  April  29,  1908.^^°  Again  was  the  omis- 
sion from  the  indictment  of  the  fact  that  Schmitz  was 
Mayor  and  Ruef  a  boss,  emphasized. ^^^     And  again,  it 

350  The  Bee  prefaced  the  Chief  Justice's  article  with  the  fol- 
lowing statement:  "The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Cali- 
fornia in  the  case  of  Eugene  Schmitz  is  one  not  only  of  State  but 
even  of  national  importance.  It  has  been  the  fruitful  topic  of  varied 
comment  throughout  the  Union.  And  yet,  after  all  the  discussion, 
there  remains  a  prevailing  ignorance  as  to  WHAT  WAS  DE- 
CIDED; and  even  among  those  laymen  who  had  a  fair  idea  upon 
that  point,  there  is  certainly  little  if  any  knowledge  as  to  WHY 
IT  WAS  SO  DECIDED. 

"Having  a  very  high  idea  of  the  granitic  probity  of  Chief  Jus- 
tice Beatty  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  believing  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  that  Court  to  answer  when  citizens  respectfully  ask  for  light, 
the  editor  of  this  paper  on  March  31st  last  wi-ote  to  Chief  Justice 
Beatty  and  asked  him  to  publicly  explain  just  what  the  Court  had 
decided  and  just  why  it  had  so  decided;  to  explain  it  so  that  the 
man  in  the  street  might  easily  understand.  In  that  quite  lengthy 
letter  to   the   Chief  Justice,    the   editor  of  The  Bee   wrote: 

"  'The  ignorance  of  the  general  public  as  to  what  was  decided 
and  exactly  why  it  was  decided  has  undoubtedly  given  rise  to 
considerable  of  a  public  suspicion  that  all  is  not  as  it  should  be — 
that  injustice  has  triumphed  where  justice  should  have  prevailed — 
that  the  good  work  of  almost  two  years  has  been  practically  wiped 
out  by  a  judicial  obeisance  to  technicalities — that  the  guilty  have 
been  saved  by  the  interposition  of  a  judicial  hand  that  could  with 
more  propriety  and  equally  as  much  regard  for  the  law  have 
turned  the  scales  to  record  the  verdict  of  the  highest  tribunal  on 
the  side  of   good  government.' 

"Justice  Beatty  answers  the  questions  at  length,  but  with  such 
clearness  that  the  'man  in  the  street'  can  understand.  His  ex- 
planation should  be  read  by  everybody,  so  that  hereafter  those 
who  discuss  the  matter  can  do  so  with  a  full  and  thorough  under- 
standing of  exactly  what  the  Supreme  Court  decided  in  the  Schmitz 
case,  and  exactly  why  it  considered  it  had  so  to  decide." 

351  "I  repeat,"  said  the  Chief  Justice  in  his  Bee  article,  "that 
the  only  question  presented  for  decision  was  the  question  of 
statutory  construction  here  stated,  for  it  was  never  seriously  con- 
tended before  the  Supreme  Court  by  the  Attorney  General,  or  by 
the  District  Attorney  of  San  Francisco,  or  by  any  of  his  assistants 
or  deputies,  or  by  the  learned  counsel,  whose  names  are  signed 
to   the   petition   for   a   rehearing,    that    the    indictment   did   allege   a 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  329 

may  be  added,  did  the  stupid  man  on  the  street  fail  to 
understand.  In  fact,  disapproval  of  the  decision  con- 
tinued. Heney  attacked  it  respectfully  in  tone,  but 
with  sharp  criticism. ^^- 

James  M.  Kerr,^^^  in  his  Cyclopedia  Penal  Code  of 

threat  to  do  an  unlawful  injury  of  the  character  indicated.  WTiat 
it  did  allege  on  this  point,  and  all  that  it  alleged,  was  that  one 
E.  E.  Schmitz  (without  showing  that  he  was  Mayor  of  the  city, 
or  that  he  had  any  official  or  other  influence  over  the  Board  of 
Police  Commissioners  greater  than,  or  different  from,  that  of  the 
humblest  private  citizen),  and  one  Abraham  Ruef  (without  show- 
ing that  he  had  any  such  power  or  influence)  had  told  certain 
keepers  of  a  restaurant  that  they  could,  and  had  threatened  that 
they  would,  prevent  them  from  obtaining  a  renewal  of  tlieir 
license  to  sell  liquors,  etc.  The  indictment,  in  other  words,  had 
no  more  force  in  legal  contemplation  than  if  it  had  been  directed 
against  Jack  Stiles  and  Richard  Noakes,  for  though  the  facts  that 
Schmitz  was  Mayor  and  Ruef  the  political  boss  of  the  city  may 
have  been  as  notorious  in  San  Francisco  as  the  fire  or  earthquake, 
no  lawyer  would  contend  for  a  moment  that  they  were  facts  of 
which  a  court  could  take  judicial  notice  in  passing  upon  the  suffi- 
ciency of  the  indictment." 

352  Heney's  reply  to  Chief  Justice  Beatty  was  published  in  The 
Sacramento  Bee.  Section  961  of  the  California  Penal  Code  ex- 
pressly provides  that  no  fact  of  which  a  court  may  take  judi- 
cial notice,  need  be  alleged  in  any  indictment.  The  Codes  enu- 
merate certain  matters  of  which  the  courts  are  required  to  take 
judicial  notice.  Among  the  matters  are  "State  offices  and  their 
incumbents."  The  Political  Code  defines  who  are  "State  officers," 
and  among  them  are  included  "Mayors  of  Cities."  Heney,  in  his 
reply,  held  Chief  Justice  Beatty  and  the  court  to  be  wrong,  even 
on  the  face  of  the  statute.  No  lawyer  in  the  State  attempted  to 
answer  Heney's  reply,  although  many  of  them  would  have  been 
glad  to  have  earned  recognition  from  the  Supreme  Court  by 
doing   so. 

353  James  M.  Kerr  is  author  of  Kerr's  California  Cyclopedic 
Codes.  These  works  are  accepted  as  standards  throughout  the 
country. 

"It  is  thought,"  says  Kerr  in  California  Cyclopedic  Codes  for 
1908,  "that  .  .  .  the  [Schmitz]  case  cannot  be  safely  relied  upon 
as  an  authority  outside  of  California.  It  is  a  flagrant  violation  of 
the  spirit  if  not  the  letter  of  Section  4  ante,  and  the  old  rule  that 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  court,  where  it  is  possible,  so  to  construe  the 
statute  as  to  uphold  the  indictment  and  promote  justice,  instead 
of  effecting  a  miscarriage  of  justice.  Several  things  occur  in  con- 
nection with  a  consideration  of  the  foregoing  quotation  from  the 
Supreme.  Court. 

"1.  If  an  indictment  can  lawfully  be  upheld,  the  court,  as  the 
judicial  voice  of  the  State,  is  bound  so  to  uphold  it.  It  is  not  the 
province  of  the  court  to  seek  some  strained  view  of  the  law  by 
which  an   indictment  of  one  accused  of  crime  can  be  quashed. 

"2.  The  construction  of  the  code  provision  on  extortion  is  to 
be  made,  not  technically,  but  according  to  the  fnir  import  of  Its 
terms,   with  a  view  to  its  object  and  to  promote  justice. 

"3.     It  is  not  charged,  and  the  statute  does  not  require  it  to  be 


330  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

California,  published  in  1908,  declared  in  effect  that  in 
the  Schmitz  decision  the  Supreme  Court  of  California 
formulated  bad   law   and   advocated   bad   pleading. 

As  for  Ruef's  position  as  a  political  boss,  Kerr  con- 
tended, it  was  merely  a  matter  of  evidence,  and  not  a 
matter  to  be  pleaded.  "The  Supreme  Court,"  concludes 
the  law  writer,  "seems  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the 
crime  of  extortion  in  this  State  is  not  confined  to  per- 
sons in  office  and  exercising  official  influence." 

Dean  John  H.  Wigmore  of  the  Northwestern  Uni- 
versity School  of  Law,  and  author  of  the  standard 
work,  Wigmore  on  Evidence,  in  a  crushing  criticism  of 

charged,  that  the  threat  was  made  by  Schmitz,  acting  in  his  offi- 
cial capacity.  The  crime  of  extortion,  under  our  statute,  is  not 
the  old  common-law  crime  of  extortion,  which  could  be  committed 
only  by  an  official  acting  in  his  official  capacity.  Under  our  statute 
it  is  immaterial  whether  Schmitz  held  any  official  position,  or 
whether  Schmitz  and  Ruef  had  any  power  or  influence  to  carry  out 
the  threat;  the  only  thing  to  be  considered  is.  Did  the  accused 
.extort  money  by  means  of  a  threat?  Official  position  or  power  to 
carry  out  the  threat  is  neither  material  nor  proper. 

"4.  It  is  entirely  immaterial  by  what  means  Schmitz  and  Ruef 
intended  to  accomplish  their  threat  to  have  the  liquor  license  with- 
held; whether  by  fair  persuasion  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  or 
by  menace,  duress,  fraud,  or  undue  Inffuence.  The  crime  charged 
did  not  consist  in  the  dealings  with  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  but 
in  the  threat  made  to  the  French  restaurateurs,  by  means  of  which 
the  fears  of  the  latter  were  aroused,  and  were  forced  to  pay  to 
Schmitz  and  Ruef  money  to  which  the  latter  were  not  entitled,  as 
a  means  of  preventing  Schmitz  and  Ruef  from  carrying  out  the 
threat.  To  require  the  indictment  to  contain  an  allegation  of  the 
means  intended  to  be  used  by  Schmitz  and  Ruef  to  accomplish  their 
unlawful  purpose — the  means  to  be  used  with,  or  to  influence,  or 
to  menace,  or  duress,  or  fraud  in  dealing  with,  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors— is  indubitably  bad  law  and  bad  pleading. 

"5.  The  declaration  that  the  case  'is  not  one  which  is  sufficient 
to  charge  an  offense  in  the  language  of  the  statute  defining  it,' 
made  by  the  court,  needs  some  reason  and  good  authorities  to  make 
it  good  law  outside  of  this  State,  and  also  in  this  State  under  the 
system  of  criminal  pleading  provided  for  by  the  code — which  should 
be  the  law  by  which  criminal  pleading  is  to  be  measured. 

"6.  It  does  not  seem  to  have  been  suggested  to  the  court,  and 
it  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to  the  learned  judges  thereof, 
that  the  trial  court  was  required  to  take  judicial  notice  of  the  head 
of  department  of  a  co-ordinate  department  of  the  government  of 
the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and  to  take  judicial  notice 
of  the  fact  that  Schmitz  was  at  least  de  facto  Mayor.  See  Kerr's 
Cyc.  Code  Civ.  Proc,  Sec.  1875,   Subd.  5. 

"7.     The  position  and  practical  control  of  Ruef,  as  the   'political 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  331 

the  decision  and  the  various  documents  in  the  case, 
charged  the  Chief  Justice  with  being  "plainly  incon- 
sistent." 

"The  truth  is,"  said  Dean  Wigmore,  "that  the 
learned  Chief  Justice  in  endeavoring  to  support  his 
decision  v^eaves  a  logical  web  and  then  entangles  him- 
self in   it."  ^^*     The  moral  of  the   Schmitz   decision   is, 


boss'  of  San  Francisco  (a  position  unrecognized  by  law),  and  his 
undue  influence  over  the  Board  of  Supervisors  (the  exercise  of 
which  is  contrary  to  public  policy),  was  merely  matter  of  evidence, 
and  not  a  matter  to  be  pleaded;  the  only  tiling  that  is  important 
is,  Was  the  threat  made?  and  did  the  defendants,  Schmitz  and 
Ruef,  through  such  threat,  extort  money,  and  by  means  of  the  fear 
raised  thereby?  If  they  did,  it  is  utterly  immaterial  whether 
Schmitz  was  Mayor,  or  Ruef  was  a  'political  boss,'  and  had  or  had 
not  any  influence  with  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  The  Supreme 
Court  seems  to  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  crime  of  extortion 
in  this  State  is  not  confined  to  persons  in  ofHce,  and  exercising 
oflScial  influence. 

"8.  A  tlireat  to  do  a  lawful  act,  if  made  for  the  purpose  of 
putting  a  person  in  fear,  and  thereby  securing  money  or  property 
which  tlie  person  was  not  in  law  entitled  to  have  and  receive,  ren- 
ders such  person  guilty  of  extortion,  under  the  weight  of  decision 
and  the  better  doctrine;  and  taking  the  case  in  that  view,  the  In- 
dictment is  amply  suflficient,  and  should  have  been  upheld  by  the 
court.  The  case  of  Boyson  vs.  Thorn,  98  Cal.,  578;  33  Pac.  Rep.,  492, 
has  no  application,  and  its  citation  by  the  court  only  tends  to  befog 
the  Issue." 

354  Dean  Wigmore's  criticism  of  the  decisions  in  the  Schmitz 
case,  and  of  the  articles  written  in  defense  of  them  was  as  fol- 
lows: "I  have  read  the  letter  of  Mr.  Heney,  and  the  letter  of  the 
Chief  Justice,  and  have  re-read  the  opinion  of  the  Court  in  People 
vs.  Schmitz,  94  Pac.  Rep.  419.  The  Chief  Justice's  letter  and  Mr. 
Heney's  reply  turn  largely  on  the  legal  rule  of  judicial  notice. 
The  learned  Chief  Justice  finds  himself  iron-bound  by  the  rules 
of  that  subject.  But  the  whole  spirit  of  the  rules  is  misconceived 
by  him.  Their  essential  and  sole  purpose  is  to  relieve  the  party 
from  proof, — that  is,  from  proof  of  facts  which  are  so  notorious 
as  not  to  need  proof.  When  a  party  has  not  averred  or  evidenced 
a  fact  which  later  turns  out,  in  the  Supreme  Court's  opinion,  to 
be  vital,  the  rule  of  judicial  notice  helps  out  the  judge  by  permit- 
ting him  to  take  the  fact  as  true,  where  it  is  one  so  notorious  that 
evidence  of  it  would  have  been  superfluous.  Now  these  helping 
rules  are  not  intended  to  bind  him,  but  the  contrary,  i.  e.,  to 
make  him  free  to  take  the  fact  as  proved  where  he  knows  the 
proof  was  not  needed.  Moreover,  it  follows  that,  since  these  rules 
cannot  foresee  every  case  that  new  times  and  new  conditions 
will  create,  they  can  always  receive  new  applications.  The  prece- 
dents of  former  judges,  in  noticing  specific  facts,  do  not  restrict 
present  judges  from  noticing  new  facts,  provided  only  that  the  new 
fact  is  notorious  to  all  the  community.  For  example,  the  unques- 
tioned   election    of    William    H.    Taft    as    President    of    the    United 


332  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

Dean  Wigmore  concludes,  "that  our  profession  must 
be  educated  out  of  such  vicious  habits  of  thought." 

The  extravagance  of  the  criticism  of  the  decision 
was  more  than  equaled  by  the  claims  made  by  the  oppo- 
sition to  the  prosecution,  of  its  effect  upon  the  status 
of  Schmitz  and  Ruef. 

"Schmitz,"  said  a  writer  in  The  Chronicle,  "is  now 


states  is  notorious;  but  no  man  named  William  H.  Taft  has  ever 
been  elected  President,  and  no  judicial  precedent  has  noticed  the 
fact.  But  no  court  would  hesitate  to  notice  this  new  notorious 
fact. 

"If,  then,  a  man  named  Schmitz  was  notoriously  Mayor  of  San 
Francisco  and  a  man  named  Ruef  was  notoriously  its  political 
boss,  at  the  time  in  question,  that  is  all  that  any  court  needs; 
and  the  doctrine  of  judicial  notice  gives  it  all  the  liberty  it  needs. 
It  is  conceivable  that  a  trial  judge  might  sometimes  hesitate  in 
applying  this  doctrine  of  notoriety,  because  the  trial  court  might 
fear  that  the  Supreme  Court  would  not  perceive  the  notoriety. 
But  there  never  need  be  any  such  hesitation  in  a  Supreme  Court, 
If  that  court  does  see   the  notoriety. 

"And  this  is  just  where  the  learned  Chief  Justice  is  to  be 
criticised.  He  does  not  for  a  moment  ask  or  answer  the  question, 
'Did  we  actually,  as  men  and  officers,  believe  these  facts  to  be 
notoriously  so?'  but  refers  to  certain  mechanical  rules,  external  to 
his  mind.  W^hat  that  Supreme  Court  should  have  done  was  to 
decide  whether  they  under  the  circumstances  did  actually  believe 
the  facts  about  the  status  of  Schmitz  and  Ruef  to  be  notorious, 
in  not  so  doing,  they  erred  against  the  whole  spirit  and  principle 
of  judicial  notice. 

"And  Mr.  Heney's  demonstration  that  there  is  nothing  In  the 
codes  to  forbid  them  is  complete;  for,  of  course,  the  Code  of  Pro- 
cedure, in  telling  them  (Section  1875)  that  'the  courts  take  judi- 
cial notice  of  the  following  facts,'  simply  gave  them  a  liberty  of 
belief  as  to  those  specified  facts,  and  did  not  take  away  their  lib- 
erty  as   to   other   unspecified   facts. 

"But  there  is  a  deeper  error  than  this  in  the  learned  Chief 
Justice's  letter,  and  in  the  court's  opinion.  The  letter  says:  'If 
by  means  of  these  allegations  or  otherwise  it  had  been  made  to 
appear  that  the  defendants  had  caused  the  applicants  to  believe 
that  they  could  and  would  influence  the  Police  Commissioners  to 
reject  their  application  regardless  of  its  merits  I  have  never 
doubted  that  the  indictment  would  have  been  sufficient.'  He  stakes 
his  decision  on  this  point.  The  point  is  that,  in  determining  the 
fear  caused  by  the  threat,  which  constituted  extortion,  the  belief 
of  the  restaurant-keeper  as  to  Schmitz's  and  Ruef's  power,  and 
not  their  actual  power,  was  the  essential  thing.  If  that  is  so,  then 
of  what  consequence  was  it  whether  one  or  the  other  was  Mayor 
or  boss?  And  of  what  consequence  was  it  whether  those  facts 
were  averred  or  judicially  noticed.  None  at  all.  The  indictment 
alleged  that  the  threats  were  made  to  use  influence  or  power  over 
the  Commissioners,  and  that  their  purpose  was  to  obtain  money 
by  means  of  (i.  e.,  through  fear  of)  such  threats.  Obviously,  then, 
the  actual   power  or   influence   was   immaterial;   and    the   belief  of 


Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef  333 

thoroughly  exonerated  of  the  charge  of  having  squeezed 
money   from   Malfanti,  the   French-restaurant  man." 

However  this  may  have  been,  the  practical  result 
of  the  decision  was  that  both  Schmitz  and  Ruef,  with 

the  restaurant-keeper,  the  only  material  fact,  was  a  question  of 
the  evidence  on  the  trial,  and  not  of  the  legal  sufficiency  of  the 
indictment.  All  the  lucubrations  about  judicial  notice  were  there- 
fore beside  the  point. 

"The  inconsistency  of  the  learned  Chief  Justice,  in  thus  taking 
as  essential  the  actual  status  of  Schmitz  and  Ruef,  is  further  seen 
In  his  next  paragraph.  There  he  declares  'it  could  not  be  assumed 
that  such  private  persons  could  prevent  the  issuance  of  the  license 
otherwise  than  by  adducing  good  reasons.'  But  why  does  he 
assume  tliat,  on  the  contrary,  a  threat  by  a  Mayor  or  a  boss 
could  prevent  the  issuance  of  the  license  otherwise  than  by  ad- 
ducing good  reasons?  He  says  that  if  it  had  appeared  that  the 
threats  were  made  by  a  Mayor  and  a  boss,  then  this  would  have 
sufficed,  because,  in  his  own  words,  their  influence  to  reject  the 
application  would  have  been  used  'regardless  of  its  merits.'  See 
what  this  means.  Suppose  that  two  persons,  a  Mayor  and  a  pri- 
vate citizen,  tell  a  restaurant-keeper  that  they  will  do  all  they 
can  to  induce  a  Commissioner  to  revoke  the  license  unless  money 
is  paid;  for  one  of  these  persons,  the  learned  Chief  Justice  immedi- 
ately assumes  that  he  can  and  will  do  this  'regardless  of  its 
merits';  for  the  other  he  says  'it  cannot  be  assumed.'  Why  not 
for  one  as  much  or  as  little  as  the  other?  He  does  not  say 
that  the  private  person  could  not  possibly  succeed  in  influencing 
the  Commissioner  corruptly — he  merely  says  that  'it  cannot  be 
assumed.'  On  the  other  hand,  why  assume  it  for  the  Mayor? 
Surely  a  Mayor  might  fail  in  trying  to  influence  an  honest  Com- 
missioner by  a  corrupt  threat  to  remove  him.  In  short,  either 
assume  that  on  the  facts  of  the  trial  a  private  person  might  have 
power  to  influence  corruptly  the  license;  in  which  case  an  allega- 
tion of  his  Mayoralty  would  be  superfluous.  Or  else  refuse  to 
assume  that  a  Mayor,  merely  as  such,  could  and  would  inevitably 
Influence  a  Commissioner  corruptly;  in  which  case  the  mere  alle- 
gation of  his  being  Mayor  would  not  be  enough,  and  judicial  notice 
would  not  cure.  But  the  Chief  Justice  says  it  would  be  enough! 
He   is  plainly  inconsistent. 

"The  truth  is  that  the  learned  Chief  Justice,  in  endeavoring  to 
support  his  decision,  weaves  a  logical  web,  and  then  entangles 
himself  in  it. 

"Such  disputations  were  the  life  of  scholarship  and  of  the  law 
six  hundrd  years  ago.  They  are  out  of  place  today.  There  are 
enough  rules  of  law  to  sustain  them,  if  the  court  wants  to  do  so. 
And  there  are  enough  rules  of  law  to  brush  them  away,  If  the 
court  wants  to  do  that. 

"All  the  rules  in  the  world  will  not  get  us  substantial  justice 
If  the  judges  have  not  the  correct  living  moral  attitude  toward 
substantial   justice. 

"We  do  not  doubt  that  there  are  dozens  of  other  Supreme  Jus- 
tices who  would  decide,  and  are  today  deciding,  in  obscure  cases, 
just  such  points  in  just  the  same  way  as  the  California  case.  And 
we  do  not  doubt  there  are  hundreds  of  lawyers  whose  professional 
habit  of  mind  would  make  them  decide  just  that  way  if  they  were 
elevated  to  the  bench  tomorrow  in  place  of  those  other  anachro- 
nistic jurists  who  are  now  there.     The  moral  is  that  our  profession 


334  Higher  Courts  Free  Schmitz  and  Ruef 

no  convictions  against  them,  by  furnishing  bonds  in  the 
bribery  cases,  were  able  to  walk  out  of  prison. 

Schmitz  did  not  return  as  a  prisoner.     Ruef  enjoyed 
his  liberty  until  November,  1908. 


must  be  educated  out  of  such  vicious  liabits  of  tliought.  One  way 
to  do  this  is  to  let  the  newer  ideas  be  dinned  into  their  professional 
consciousness  by  public  criticism  and  private  conversation. 

"The  Schmitz-Ruef  case  will  at  least  have  been  an  ill-wind 
blowing  good  to  somebody  if  it  helps  to  achieve  that  result. 

"December  7,   1908.  JOHN   H.   WIGMORE." 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant. 

The  prosecution's  reverses  in  the  Appellate  and  the 
Supreme  Courts  were  followed  by  startling  changes  of 
policy  on  the  part  of  the  defendants. 

The  ofificials  of  public  service  corporations,  who  by 
every  technical  device  within  the  ingenuity  of  the  best 
legal  talent  that  could  be  purchased,  had  for  months 
resisted  trial,  suddenly  became  clamorous  for  their 
trials  to  begin.  Abe  Ruef,  who  had  been  counted,  by 
the  public  at  least,  as  friendly  to  the  prosecution,  openly 
broke  with  the  District  Attorney  and  his  associates. 

President  Calhoun  of  the  United  Railroads,  who 
had  been  in  the  East,  returned  to  San  Francisco  de- 
manding trial.  The  San  Francisco  Examiner,  now 
openly  opposing  the  prosecution,  announced  this  new 
move  to  be  a  bomb-shell  thrown  in  the  prosecution's 
camp.  Nevertheless,  The  Examiner  could  not  entirely 
conceal  the  astonishment  caused  by  the  defense's  new 
policy. 

"Just  what  has  brought  about  this  change  in  Cal- 
houn's attitude,"  said  the  Examiner  in  its  issue  of 
January  28,  1908,  "was  not  explained  yesterday.  Tac- 
tics of  evasion,  motions  of  obstruction,  and  every  other 
artifice  known  to  legal  legerdemain  to  stay  proceed- 
ings have  heretofore  been  the  accepted  etiquette  of  the 
graft  defendants,  and  conspicuously  that  of  Patrick 
Calhoun." 


336        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

The  Call,  supporting  the  prosecution,  boldly  charged 
that  the  graft  defendants  were  in  treaty  with  Ruef.^^^ 
And  this  view  the  District  Attorney's  office  was  finally 
forced  to  accept. 

No  sooner  had  the  decision  of  the  Appellate  Court 
been  made  public  than  Ruef  clamored  for  dismissal  of 
the  extortion  charge  to  which  he  had  plead  guilty,  but 
which  the  higher  court  had  decided  in  the  Schmitz  case 
did  not  constitute  a  public  ofifense.  In  this  Ruef  was 
backed  by  Rabbis  Nieto  and  Kaplan. 

Ruef,  after  the  Schmitz-Ruef  officials  had  been 
swept  out  of  office,  had  been  confined  in  the  county 
jail.     From  the  day  of  his  jail  imprisonment  the  two 


356  When  Calhoun  returned  to  San  Francisco  demanding  imme- 
diate trial,  the  Examiner  announced  that  he  "threw  a  bombshell 
Into  the  camp  of  the  prosecution."  The  Call,  however,  dealt  with 
the  incident  as   follows: 

"Patrick  Calhoun  has  come  back  in  a  hurry,  shouting  for  an 
immediate  trial.  He  is  certain  that  he  has  the  prosecution  on  the 
hip.  His  men  are  in  treaty  with  Ruef.  His  organs  in  the  press, 
the  Examiner,  the  Chronicle  and  the  gutter  weeklies,  begin  to  see 
Ruef  in  a  wholly  new  light.  Three  weeks  ago  Ruef  was  the  vilest 
criminal.  No  immunity  for  him.  Indeed,  immunity,  in  the  lexicon 
of  the  Calhoun  press,  was  then  a  worse  crime  than  bribery  or 
graft.  It  is  very  different  now  that  the  new  alliance  between  Ruef 
and  the  bribe  givers  is  in  process  of  negotiation.  Ruef  has  at  once 
become  the  persecuted  sufferer,  the  victim  of  a  heartless  cabal, 
pushing  one  more  unfortunate  to  his  ruin  and  positively  'rushing' 
him  to  trial  with  indecent  haste,  with  no  lawyers  but  Henry  Ach 
to  hire.     It  is  too  bad. 

"Why  this  astonishing  and  sudden  change  of  front?  It  is  sim- 
ply that  Calhoun  has  made  up  his  mind  that  this  is  the  time  for 
grafters  and  boodlers  and  bribe  givers  to  stand  together.  He  has 
persuaded  himself  that  the  prosecution  is  dazed  by  the  extraordi- 
nary decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals,  and  that  the  same  has  put 
Ruef  in  a  receptive  mood  for  a  treaty  of  alliance,  offensive  and 
defensive,  among  all  varieties  of  boodlers,  franchise  grabbers,  bribe 
givers  and  bribe  takers.  Calhoun  knows  that  Ruef  on  trial  or 
before  trial  is  a  very  different  person  from  Ruef  after  conviction. 
He  wants  to  keep  Ruef  in  his  present  state  of  mind.  Of  course, 
he  knows  that  he  can  not  trust  Ruef.  No  man  who  has  had  deal- 
ings with  the  shifty  boss  knows  on  what  side  he  will  turn  up  next. 
At  present  Ruef  lends  a  responsive  ear  to  Calhoun's  overtures. 
Consultations  are  held  without  disguise  between  Calhoun's  lawyers 
and  Ruef.  It  is  time  for  Ruef  and  Calhoun  to  stand  together. 
The  association  is  suggestive  but  natural." 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        337 

Rabbis  besought  the  District  Attorney  day  and  night  *" 
not  to  force  the  broken  boss  to  remain  behind  the 
bars."® 

Langdon,  not  having  decided  at  the  time  to  appeal 
from  the  Appellate  Court  decision  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
finally  yielded  to  the  importunities  of  the  two  clergy- 
men and  stated  to  Judge  Dunne  that  Ruef  wanted  to 
make  a  motion  to  withdraw  his  plea  of  guilty  in  the 
extortion  case.  Judge  Dunne  replied  that  he  would  not 
consider  such  motion.^'® 

This  closed  the  incident  so  far  as  dismissal  of  the 
case  before  the  Supreme  Court  could  pass  upon  it,  was 
concerned.  But  it  did  not  stop  Ruef's  insistence  that 
not  only  should  he  be  allowed  to  withdraw  his  plea 
of  guilty,  but  that  he  be  given  complete  immunity  from 
prosecution  of  all  the  charges  against  him. 

Langdon,  even  before  he  had  spoken  to  Judge 
Dunne  about  permitting  Ruef  to  withdraw  his  plea,  had 
become  convinced,  as  Heney  had  become  convinced  long 
before,  that  Ruef  was  not  playing  fair  with  the  prose- 
cution.    Ruef,  when  confronted  with  charges  of  holding 


357  The  graft  prisoners  unquestionably  suffered  greatly  from 
their  confinement. 

"No  matter,"  said  Ruef,  in  an  interview  printed  in  The  Exam- 
iner January  11,  1908,  "how  much  effort  is  made,  the  place  cannot 
be  kept  clean.  Filth  accumulates  and  no  running  water  has  been 
provided.  The  gases  from  the  drain  pipes  permeate  the  cells  and 
are  always  present.  No  prisoner  can  keep  himself  clean,  and  it  Is 
no  wonder  that  clothing  and  everything  is  uncleanly." 

Schmitz,  long  of  body,  complained  that  he  needed  a  long  cell. 
"I  would  like  a  longer  cell,"  he  is  reported  as  saying.  "My  legs 
are  too  long  and  I  cannot  stretch  them  out.  The  hole  is  beastly 
and  no  place  for  a  clean  man." 

Louis  Glass  declared  that  he  would  be  dead  in  a  few  days  if  not 
permitted  to  remain  outside  his  cell. 

358  See  affidavit  filed  by  District  Attorney  Langdon  in  The 
People   vs.   Patrick  Calhoun  et  al.,  No.   823. 

359  See  affidavits  filed  by  District  Attorney  Langdon,  and  by 
Judge  Dunne,  in  the  case  of  Patrick  Calhoun  et  al.,  No.  823. 


338        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

back  evidence,  shifted  and  evaded,  until  Langdon,  los- 
ing patience,  charged  him  with  falsehood. 

About  the  middle  of  January,  evidence  came  into 
Langdon's  possession  ^^°  which  convinced  him  beyond  a 
shadow  of  a  doubt  that  Ruef,  instead  of  observing  the 
immunity  contract,  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  dealing 
with  and  assisting  his  co-defendants,  advising  them  of 
every  move. 

Langdon  ^"^  at  once  called  Ruef  before  him  and 
notified  him  that  the  immunity  contract  was  canceled. ^"^ 

The  abrogation  of  the  immunity  contract  brought 
open  break  between  Ruef  and  the  prosecution.     Ruef 

300  Langdon  does  not  state  in  his  affidavit  what  this  evidence 
was.  But  at  tlie  trial  of  Ruef  for  offerng  bribes  to  Jennings  Phil- 
lips to  grant  the  Parkside  Railroad  franchise,  former  Supervisor 
Wilson  testified  that  at  the  first  Ford  trial  Ruef  had  asked  him  to 
bury  his  memory  of  the  money  transactions  and  discussions  with 
Ruef.  Ruef  at  the  time  was  pretending  to  be  assisting  the  Prose- 
cution in  conformity  with  the  terms  of  his  Immunity  contract. 

361  District  Attorney  Langdon,  in  an  affidavit  filed  in  the  case 
of  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Calhoun  et  al.,  No.  823,  states  his  atti- 
tude toward  Ruef.     Mr.   Langdon  says: 

"Affiant  further  avers  and  declares  that  if  affiant  believed  that 
the  defendant  Ruef  had  fully  and  fairly  performed  his  part  of  the 
agreement,  and  had  honestly  rendered  such  service  to  the  State 
as  would  have  entitled  him  to  the  consideration  set  forth  in  the 
immunity  contract,  this  affiant  would  have  moved  in  open  court 
to  dismiss  the  indictments  against  defendant  Ruef,  and  if  said 
motion  were  denied  and  affiant  was  directed  by  the  Court  or  any 
other  official  to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  said  defendant,  this  affiant 
would  have  declined  to  do  so,  and  after  exhausting  every  resource 
at  his  command  to  carry  out  the  terms  and  condifions  of  said  im- 
munity agreement,  would  have  resigned  his  official  position  of  Dis- 
trict Attorney  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  rather 
than   prosecute  the  defendant  Ruef. 

"This  affiant  avers  that  it  was  only  when  he  became  convinced 
that  the  defendant  Ruef  was  still  traitorous  to  the  State  he  had 
debauched,  and  whose  laws  he  had  defied,  and  that  instead  of 
trying  to  make  reparation  for  the  wrong  he  had  done,  was  endeav- 
oring not  only  to  save  himself  from  the  punishment  he  so  richly 
deserved,  but  also  was  endeavoring  to  make  certain  the  escape 
from  punishment  of  his  co-defendants,  that  affiant  determined  the 
immunity  contract  to  have  been  broken  by  Ruef,  and  no  longer  in 
force  and  effect." 

362  The  Examiner  in  its  issue  of  January  19,  190S,  stated  that 
the  abrogation  of  the  immunity  contract,  "means  among  other 
things  that  Ruef  will  now  have  aligned  in  his  defense,  the  massed 
influence  of  interests  represented  by  the  prosecution  to  command 
$600,000,000  in  wealth." 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        339 

set  up  claim  that  under  his  immunity  contract  all  the 
graft  cases  were  to  be  dismissed  against  him,  including 
that  under  which  he  had  plead  guilty  to  extortion.  He 
insisted  that  he  had  lived  up  to  his  part  of  the  agree- 
ment and  charged  that  the  prosecution  was  breaking 
faith. 

In  this  position,  Ruef  was  backed  up  by  Rabbis 
Kaplan  and  Nieto,  who  for  months  had  been  clamor- 
ously active  in  his  behalf.  Indeed,  long  before  the  open 
breach  had  come,  so  persistent  had  the  Rabbis  become 
in  their  insistence  that  Ruef  be  released,  that  Heney 
had  found  it  necessary  to  request  Kaplan  to  remain 
away  from  his  office.^^^  When  Ruef  finally  broke  with 
the  prosecution,  the  two  Rabbis  were  to  the  fore  back- 
ing up  his  contention  that  the  prosecution  was  not 
keeping  faith  with  him.^*^* 

Kaplan  soon  after  filed  an  affidavit  setting  forth  that 
under  the  agreement  with  the  prosecution,  Ruef  was  to 

363  Heney,  In  an  affidavit  filed  in  tiie  case  of  The  People  vs. 
Patrick  Calhoun  et  al..  No.  833,  states  that  he  finally  said  to  Kap- 
lan, "You  only  annoy  and  irritate  me  by  coming  here,  Doctor,  and 
I  wish  you  would  stay  away.  I  don't  want  to  get  mad  at  you, 
because  I  respect  you  and  am  satisfied  that  you  are  sincere,  but 
Ruef  is  making  a  fool  of  you,  and  I  have  wasted  more  time  than 
I  can  spare  in  talking  with  you  about  these  things.  You  will  do 
me  a  great  favor  if  you  will  stay  away  from  my  office." 

In  spite  of  this  suggestion,  Kaplan,  a  few  days  later,  called 
Heney  up  on  the  telephone.  Of  the  incident,  Heney  says  in  his 
affidavit:  "A  few  days  later,  however,  he  called  me  on  the  tele- 
phone. I  was  at  my  office  at  the  time,  and  do  not  know  where  he 
was.  He  said  over  the  telephone  in  substance,  'Mr.  Heney.  I  don't 
like  to  trouble  you  any  more,  but  I  had  a  talk  with  Mr.  Burns  and 
I  have  since  had  another  talk  with  Mr.  Ruef,  and  I  am  sure  that 
Mr.  Ruef's  testimony  will  now  satisfy  you.  He  says  that  when  he 
is  on  the  witness  stand  and  you  ask  him' — I  interrupted  him  at 
about  this  point  and  said  in  a  very  severe  tone  of  voice,  'Dr.  Kap- 
lan, I  don't  want  you  talking  such  stuff  to  me  o%'er  the  phone,  or 
anywhere  else.  I  have  asked  you  not  to  talk  to  me  about  this 
matter  any  more  and  not  to  come  to  my  office,  and  I  will  now  have 
to  ask  you  not  to  call  me  any  more  on  the  telephone.  I  don't  want 
to  hear  anything  more  about  Ruef's   testimony." 

364  See  affidavits  filed  by  Rabbis  Nieto  and  Kaplan  in  the  case 
of  The  People  vs.    Patrick  Calhoun  et  al. 


340        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

have  had  complete  immunity,  and  be  allowed  to  with- 
draw his  plea  of  guilty  in  the  extortion  case.  Later 
on,  Nieto,  "Ruef's  diplomatic  middle  man,"  as  he  was 
called,  filed  an  affidavit  to  the  same  effect.  Ruef,  on  his 
part,  filed  a  voluminous  affidavit,  purporting  to  cover 
all  his  transactions  with  the  prosecution,  in  which  he 
not  only  set  up  the  claim  that  he  was  to  have  been 
given  complete  immunity  but  alleged  that  Langdon, 
Heney  and  Burns,  were  guilty  of  subornation  of  per- 
jury in  having  endeavored  to  get  him  to  swear  falsely 
against  Schmitz  and  Ford. 

Rabbis  Kaplan  and  Nieto,  in  their  affidavits  gave 
versions  of  the  meetings  with  Judges  Dunne  and  Law- 
lor,  when  the  Judges  stated  their  confidence  in  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  and  his  assistants,  which  differed  from 
the  accounts  contained  in  the  affidavit  of  Heney  and 
the  judges.^®^  This  brought  the  trial  judges  as  well 
as  the  assistant  prosecuting  attorney  into  the  contro- 
versy. 

The  members  of  the  Grand  Jury  that  had  indicted 
the  graft  defendants  had  already  had  their  trials  in 
open  court  ;^®®  petit  jurors  and  witnesses  had,  in  effect, 
been  on  trial  also.  And  now  District  Attorney  and  trial 
judges  were  placed  on  their  defense.^**'' 

Other  graft  defendants  joined  in  the  upholding  of 

365  See  Chapter  XV. 

366  See  Chapter  XV. 

367  A  letter  from  W.  H.  Payson,  a  leader  of  the  San  Francisco 
bar,  to  Rabbi  Nieto  fairly  expressed  the  public  attitude  on  the 
Rabbi's  stand.  Mr.  Payson's  letter  read:  "Rabbi  Jacob  Nieto. 
Dear  Sir: — As  you  have  written  a  letter  to  the  public  explaining 
your  connection  with  the  Ruef  case,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place 
for  one  of  the  public  to  reply. 

"When  Mr.  Ruef  made  his  apparently  frank  statement  admit- 
ting that  he  had  betrayed  his  city  into  the  hands  of  the  spoilers, 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        341 

Ruef  and  the  denunciation  of  the  prosecution.  Adverse 
newspapers  joined  in  the  cry  of  unfairness  and  hinted 

but  promised  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  right  the  wrong,  whatever 
the  consequences  might  be  to  himself,  the  public  believed  him  and 
believed  that  he  was  going  to  do  right  because  it  was  right  and 
for  his  own  self-respect,  and  not  at  the  price  of  saving  his  own 
skin.  Acting  on  this  assumption  many  of  us  congratulated  Mr. 
Ruef  and  assured  him  that  he  had  gone  far  toward  recovering  his 
position  in  the  public  esteem.  It  now  turns  out  from  your  letter 
of  explanation  that  Mr.  Ruef's  public  statement  of  his  high  and 
noble  purpose  was  a  mockery  and  hollow  sham;  that  he  had 
rejected  any  proposition  to  act  the  man,  but  like  his  contemptible 
associates,   sought  only   to   escape  his  just  deserts. 

"We  recognize  th.e  unfortunate  necessity  the  prosecution  was 
under  of  granting  immunity  in  order  to  secure  the  evidence  to 
convict  the  greater  felons,  but  surely  the  officers  of  the  law  were 
fully  qualified  to  attend  to  that  miserable  business.  If  you  could 
have  influenced  Mr.  Ruef  to  stand  on  the  higher  plane  of  honor 
and  decency  of  which  you  are  the  advocate  and  representative, 
you  would  indeed  have  done  a  great  public  service  and  you  might 
have  saved  him  for  better  things,  but  it  would  seem  that  your 
services  were  directed  chiefly  to  saving  him  from  the  just  penalty 
of  his  crimes  and  that  the  arrangement  with  him  was  on  the  same 
sordid  level  as  the  immunity  contracts  with  the  Supervisors,  for 
which  no  ministerial  services  were  necessary.  From  your  position 
and  religious  heritage  we  had  a  right  to  expect  that  your  dis- 
tinguished services  would  have  been  put  to  a  better  use.  I  am 
still  sufficiently  credulous  as  to  believe  that  with  proper  influence 
Mr.  Ruef  might  have  been  induced  to  take  the  course  we  were 
led  to  believe  he  had  taken. 

"Your  letter  even  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  that  Mr.  Ruef  is  jus- 
tified in  his  present  attitude,  and  that  the  judges,  who,  from  your 
statement,  were  ready  to  go  to  the  extreme  of  mercy  and  consider- 
ation, are  now  to  be  censured  for  not  carrying  out  an  immunity 
contract  which  has  been  flagrantly  broken  by  the  other  party  to  it. 

"The  serious  features  of  this  unfortunate  situation  are  not  that 
officials  should  receive  bribes,  or  that  men  of  wealth  and  standing 
should  bribe  them,  or  that  attorneys  of  reputation  should  engineer 
the  filthy  operation,  but  that  not  one  of  the  army  of  bribed  and 
bribers  has  been  found  of  sufficient  manliness  or  moral  stamina 
to  make  a  frank  statement  of  the  facts  and  give  aid  in  the  cause 
of  justice,  and  that  so  many  people  are  willing  to  shield  the  influ- 
ential criminals  for  commercial  motives,  and  that  there  is  so  low 
a  state  of  public  morals  as   to   make   these  things  possible. 

"The  great  body  of  the  public  is  heart  and  soul  back  of  this 
prosecution,  because  we  believe  it  is  an  honest  attempt,  not  merely 
to  convict  certain  criminals,  but  to  elevate  the  standard  of  public 
morality,  and  whatever  may  be  the  outcome  and  even  though, 
through  successive  miscarriages  of  justice,  every  guilty  man  escape 
his  legal  punishment,  the  graft  prosecution  has,  nevertheless,  suc- 
ceeded beyond  our  fondest  hopes;  nine-tenths  of  its  work  has  been 
accomplished,  and  in  the  teeth  of  the  most  determined  and  des- 
perate opposition   perhaps  ever  known. 

"Be  assured  that  every  guilty  man  will  be  convicted  at  the  bar 

of  public  opinion,  and  from  that  conviction  there  will  be  no  appeal 

and  no  escape;  they  will  be  known  and  branded  for  life,   each  and 

every  one.      The   public   is   not   a  party   to   the   immunity  contracts. 

"Very  truly  yours, 

"W.   H.    PAYSON. 

"San  Francisco,  January  30,  1908." 


342        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

at  worse.  The  story  became  current  that  no  appeal 
would  be  made  from  the  Appellate  Court's  decision  in 
the  Schmitz  case  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Another  story 
had  it  that  the  prosecution  was  breaking  down,  that  the 
situation  had  become  so  complicated  that  no  other  trials 
could  be  had.^®^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  outcry  did  not  in  the  least 
shake  the  faith  of  the  citizens  who  were  insisting  upon 
the  crushing  out  of  corruption  at  the  State's  metropolis. 
Colonel  Harris  Weinstock,  one  of  the  largest  merchants 
of  the  State,  in  a  ringing  address  condemned  the  efforts 
made  to  discredit  the  prosecution.^*^^    The  same  position 


368  District  Attorney  Langdon's  statement  in  reply  to  these 
criticisms  was  as  follows:  "I  have  no  answer  at  this  time  to  make 
to  the  statements  given  out  by  Patrick  Calhoun  and  made  in  be- 
half of  other  defendants  in  the  graft  cases  with  the  intention  of 
discrediting  the  prosecution  and  attempting  to  lead  the  public  to 
believe  that  we  have  acted  unfairly  in  the  conduct  of  these  cases. 
The  time  will  come  when  such  charges  will  be  answered,  but  they 
will  be  answered  only  as  events  shall  dirct. 

"Nothing  that  has  occurred  within  the  past  few  weeks  has  in 
any  way  complicated  the  situation  as  far  as  the  prosecution  is  con- 
cerned or  has  tended  to  weaken  our  position.  The  original  plans 
of  the  prosecution  are  to  be  carried  out  just  as  we  have  always 
intended  to  carry  them  out.  The  Ruef  case  will  be  tried  immedi- 
ately, and  every  other  defendant  under  indictment  will  be  brought 
to  trial  just  as  quickly  as  the  courts  are  able  to  dispose  of  the 
cases.  We  shall  not  falter  in  our  duty.  I  can  promise  that  while 
the  present  District  Attorney  is  in  office  this  battle  will  be  fought 
out   to   the  end   of  the   last  case. 

"The  fact  is  that  at  the  present  time  we  have  the  tactical 
advantage  over  all  the  defendants,  who  have  allied  tli.eir  interests 
for  mutual  protection.  They  know  we  have  this  advantage  and 
that  is  why  they  are  shouting  so  loudly  from  the  housetops.  We 
do  not  answer  the  attacks  that  are  made  because  we  are  trying 
law  cases  and  our  every  energy  is  bent  to  the  prosecution  of  those 
cases.  We  are  entirely  satisfied,  however,  with  the  position  in 
which  we  stand  at  this  time  and  are  prepared  to  fight  our  battles 
in  the  courts  to  a  finish." 

369  The  following  are  extracts  taken  from  Mr.  Weinstock's 
address: 

"After  all,  the  saddest  thing  is  to  find  men  who  are  rated  as 
decent,  law-abiding,  intelligent,  presumably  high  minded  and  moral, 
condoning  the  sins  of  the  bribe  givers  and  deploring  their  indict- 
ment  and    pi'osecution. 

"Both  the  commercial  and  political  bribe  givers  committed  seri- 
ous crimes,  but  by  far  the  more  serious  was  the  crime  of  corrupt- 
ing public  officials,  because  the  tendency  of  this  crime  is  to  under- 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        343 

was  taken  in  pulpit,  club  room  and  street  discussion. 
From  all  parts  of  the  State  resolutions  and  memorials 
were  sent  the  prosecution  approving-  and  upholding  its 
work.^^*^  And  doggedly  the  prosecution  proceeded  to 
justify  the  expressions  of  confidence  in  its  singleness 
of  purpose  and  in  its  ability  to  cope  with  the  tremen- 
dous odds  brought  against  it. 

The  immediate  indictments  about  which  the  contro- 
versy raised  by  Ruef's  claim  for  immunity  centered 
were  those  in  the  United  Railroad  cases.  The  prose- 
cution accordingly  went  before  the  Grand  Jury  then 
sitting — the  Oliver  Grand  Jury  which  had  brought  the 
original  indictments  had  long  since  adjourned — and 
secured  three  indictments  against  Ruef,  Calhoun  and 
Ford  for  the  bribery  of  three  Supervisors,  Furey,  Nich- 
olas and  Coleman. 

In  these  indictments  every  technical  error  which 
the    ingenuity    of    the    defense    had    brought    out    was 

mine  the  very  foundation  of  the  State,  thus  leading  to  the  ulti- 
mate  destruction   of  democracy. 

"If  the  spirit  of  tlie  respectables,  figliting  and  condemning  the 
graft  prosecution,  is  to  become  the  common  spirit,  then  must  we 
bid  farewell  to  civic  virtue,  farevvell  to  pulilic  morality,  farewell 
to  good  government  and  in  time  farewell  to  our  republican  institu- 
tions  and   to   civic   liberty." 

370  A  very  good  example  of  this  is  shown  in  a  memorial  from 
Sonoma.     The  memorial  read  as  follows: 

"Sonoma,  Cal.,  March  18,  1008.  To  William  H.  Langdon.  Fran- 
cis J.  Heney,  Rudolph  Spreckels  and  others  engaged  in  the  graft 
prosecution  in  San  Francisco.  Gentlemen:  It  appearing  that  a 
portion  of  the  press  of  this  State  is  engaged  in  belittling  the  efforts 
of  tliose  engaged  in  the  prosecution  of  the  graft  cases  in  San 
Francisco,  and  is  endeavoiing  to  impute  improper  and  unjust  mo- 
tives to  all  who  have  such  prosecution  in  cliarge;  and  we  realizing 
that  It  is  the  duty  of  all  honest  people  everywhere  to  uphold  the 
hands  of  the  prosecution,  and  to  encourage  them  to  proceed  in  all 
lawful  ways  to  continue  in  their  efforts  to  bring  all  law  breakers 
to  justice, 

"We.  the  undersigned  citizens  and  residents  of  Sonoma  and 
vicinity,  mindful  of  the  good  work  you  are  all  doing,  wish  to  show 
our  appreciation  of  your  efforts,  and  encourage  you  in  continuing 
to  pursue  the  course  you  have  marked  out,  to  the  end  that  all 
law  breakers  shall  be  punished  and  the  majesty  of  the  law  vindi- 
cated." 


344        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

eliminated.  The  new  indictments  were  not  secured 
because  the  prosecution  regarded  the  objections  as  hav- 
ing merit,  but  that  the  District  Attorney's  office  might 
be  prepared  to  meet  any  emergency  which  might  arise.^^^ 
The  next  step  was  to  bring  Ruef  to  trial.  The 
prosecution  selected  the  indictment  under  which  Ruef 
had  been  brought  to  bar  for  offering  a  bribe  to  Super- 
visor Jennings  Phillips  to  vote  for  the  Parkside  street 
railroad   franchise.^^- 

371  Heney,  in  a  published  statement  regarding  these  indict- 
ments, said:  "We  do  not  consider  for  a  minute  that  tliere  is  a 
particle  of  merit  to  any  of  the  claims  made  by  the  defendants  that 
the  former  indictments  were  defectively  drawn  in  any  detail.  It 
is  wise,  however,  to  be  prepared  for  anything  that  might  happen 
a,t  any  subsequent  time,  and  so  the  present  true  bills  have  been 
found.  These  indictments  are  so  drawn  as  to  eliminate  every 
technical  objection  that  has  been  made  by  any  of  the  defendants 
to  the  former  indictments,  and  the  action  has  been  at  this  time  so 
that  the  statute  of  limitations  would  not  run  against  the  crime 
charged.  There  is  absolutely  no  significance  to  the  fact  that  the 
name  of  Abbott  and  Mullally  were  omitted,  except  that  we  feel 
that  the  cases  against  the  three  defendants  named  are  of  far 
greater  importance.  Our  sole  purpose  has  been  to  throw  an 
anchor  to   windward  to  avoid  possible  trouble  in   the  future." 

372  James  D.  Phelan,  at  the  mass  meeting  called  after  th« 
attempted  assassination  of  Heney,  summed  up  the  Parkside  case 
tersely:  "Take  the  Parkside  case,"  he  said.  "There  were  some 
men  who  wanted  a  franchise  which  we  were  all  willing  to  concede, 
but  the  boss  said  it  would  be  advisable  to  pay  for  it.  Instead  of 
making  a  demand  upon  the  Supervisors  and  an  appeal  to  the  citi- 
zens on  the  justice  of  their  cause  and  the  desirability  of  giving 
them  the  franchise,  they  continued  their  dickering  with  Ruef,  and 
for  so  much  money,  thirty  thousand  dollars,  I  believe,  he  said  he 
would  give  it  to  them.  Then  they  'doctored'  their  books  and  went 
down  to  the  Crocker  National  Bank  and  got  the  money  in  green- 
backs, handed  out  to  them  by  the  teller  of  that  institution,  whose 
managers  were  stockholders  in  the  Parkside,  among  them  a  gen- 
tleman who  told  you  the  other  day  to  vote  against  the  Hetch- 
Hetchy  proposition,   Mr.   William   H.    Crocker. 

"Now,  finding  that  they  could  get  so  easily  a  privilege  by  pay- 
ing for  it,  what  did  they  do?  They  asked  Mr.  Ruef  to  give  them 
the  franchise,  not  on  Twentieth  avenue,  an  ungraded  street,  which 
they  first  wanted,  but  in  Nineteenth  avenue,  which  had  been  dedi- 
cated as  a  boulevard  for  the  use  of  the  people,  which  was  sub- 
stantially paved,  and  which  was  the  only  avenue  we  had  to  cross 
from  the  park  to  Ingleside.  He  said  to  them  that  that  would  take 
fifteen  thousand  dollars  more,  and  they  said  'It's  a  bargain.'  And 
these  gentlemen  who  sought  the  least  objectionable  franchise,  tell 
you  now  that  they  were  victims,  tell  you  now  that  they  could  not 
get  their  franchise  any  other  way.  They  were  glad  because  they 
were  a  part  of  the  system,  a  part  of  the  'other  fellows'  of  the 
afflliated  interests.     They  were  glad  to  pay  their  money,  which  was 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        345 

Prospect  of  immediate  trial  made  a  different  man  of 
Ruef.  He  was  at  once  seized  with  the  panic  which  had 
come  upon  him  when  the  jury  had  been  completed  to 
try  him  on  the  extortion  charge.  He  begged  for  time. 
He  insisted  that  he  was  without  counsel.  He  asked  for 
three  weeks,  a  week,  even  two  days.^^^ 

Then  came  an  entirely  new  technical  defense  based 
upon  the  immunity  contract.  Ruef  alleged  that  he  had 
been  deprived  of  his  constitutional  rights  as  a  defend- 
ant, by  following  the  set  program  outlined  in  the 
contract.  But  here  Ruef  had  over-reached  himself. 
He  had  on  January  31  entered  a  plea  of  not  guilty  in 
the  Parkside  case,  the  case  on  trial.  The  District  At- 
torney had  abrogated  the  immunity  contract  thirteen 
days  before,  on  January  18.  Whatever  technical  advan- 
tage Ruef  may  have  had  because  of  the  immunity  con- 

a  paltry  sum  to  them,  In  order  to  perpetuate  the  rule  of  Ruef; 
that  they  could  go  to  him  on  any  other  occasion  to  get  an  exten- 
sion, or  a  privilege  or  a  franchise,  or  anything  that  they  wanted, 
by  simply  paying  for  it.  It  would  be  the  simplest  form  of  govern- 
ment, my  friends,  to  have  somebody  sitting  in  a  place  of  pow6r 
and  pass  out  to  you  what  you  want.  It  would  save  you  the  expense 
of  a  campaign,  it  would  save  you  the  advertising  in  the  news- 
papers, it  would  save  you  the  cost  of  mailing  a  circular  to  every 
voter.  It  is  indeed,  a  most  economical  and  direct  method  of  get- 
ting what  you  want  from  the  government." 

373  The  Oakland  Tribune,  in  support  of  Ruef's  plea  for  delay, 
said:  "Now  the  question  arises:  Is  Ruef  now  being  prosecuted 
in  good  faith  for  the  offenses  alleged  against  him  or  is  he  being 
forced  to  trial  without  adequate  preparation  merely  to  coerce  him 
into  giving  testimony  he  has  repeatedly  told  Heney,  Langdon  and 
Burns  would  be  false?  Is  not  the  summary  process  of  law  being 
invoked  to  compel  Ruef  to  tell  to  a  trial  jury  a  different  story  from 
the  one  he  related  under  oath  to  the  Oliver  Gi-and  Jury?  In  other 
words,  is  not  the  prosecution  now  trying  either  to  punish  Ruef  for 
refusing  to  commit  or  convict  himself  of  perjury  or  intimidate  him 
into  assisting,  as  a  witness  under  duress,  Heney  and  Langdon  to 
make  good  tlie  threat  they  reiterated  on  the  stump  last  fall  that 
they  would   send   Patrick   Calhoun  to  State  prison? 

"Admitting  Ruef  to  be  guilty  of  all  the  crimes  of  which  he 
stands  accused,  is  he  not  now  being  proceeded  against  In  a  crim- 
inal spirit  and  with  a  criminal  intent.'  Having  failed  to  get  what 
they  want  by  compounding  the  felonies  of  Ruef  and  his  followers, 
are  not  the  prosecution  resorting  to  compulsion  under  the  forms 
of  law  to  compel  the  commission  of  perjury?" 


34^        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

tract  was   forfeited  by  his  plea  of  not  guilty  after  its 
annulment. 

His  attorney  gravely  contended,  however,  that  Ruef 
— one  of  the  shrewdest  practitioners  at  the  San  Fran- 
cisco bar — was  without  legal  counsel  when  he  had 
entered  his  plea,  and  that  he  had  therefore  innocently 
foregone  his  constitutional  rights.  This  contention  pro- 
voked a  smile  even  from  Ruef's  partisans.  The  point 
was  not  urged  further. 

Seeing  that  trial  could  not  be  warded  off  on  techni- 
calities, Ruef  endeavored  to  disqualify  Judge  Dunne, 
the  trial  judge.  But  this  move  proved  premature. 
Judge  Dunne  was  about  to  go  on  his  vacation  and  Judge 
Dooling,''^*  a  Superior  Court  Judge  from  the  interior, 
was  called  to  sit  in  Judge  Dunne's  stead.  Ruef  there- 
upon proceeded  to  disqualify  Judge  Dooling.  He  alleged 
that  Judge  Dooling,  as  Grand  President  of  the  Native 
Sons  of  the  Golden  West,  had  signed  an  order  expelling 
him  (Ruef)  from  the  order;  he  alleged  further  that 
Judge  Dooling  had  attacked  him  in  a  speech  at  a  ban- 
quet. 

Judge  Dooling,  placed  on  trial  as  Judges  Lawlor 
and  Dunne  had  been,  was  forced  to  make  defense.  He 
denied  in  affidavits  that  he  had  ever  specially  men- 
tioned Ruef's  name  in  any  speech,  but  admitted  that 
he  might  have  said  that  any  man  guilty  of  crime  should 
be  expelled  from  the  Native  Sons  order. 

Ruef  went  to  the  Appellate  Court  for  a  writ  of  pro- 


374  Judge  M.  T.  Dooling-  was  at  the  time  Superior  Judge  of  San 
Benito,  one  of  the  smaller  of  the  interior  counties.  He  had,  how- 
ever, already  a  State-wide  reputation  for  integrity  and  ability.  He 
left  the  San  Benito  County  bench  to  accept  the  appointment  of 
President  Wilson  as  United  States  District  Judge. 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        347 

hibition  to  prevent  Judge  Dooling  trying  the  case.  The 
Appellate  Court  denied  his  petition.  Then  Ruef  went 
to  the  Supreme  Court.  Here  again  his  prayer  was 
denied.  Thus,  protesting  as  vigorously  as  a  cat  pulled 
over  a  carpet  by  the  tail,  was  Ruef  for  a  second  time 
dragged  to  trial.  The  work  of  securing  a  jury  to  try 
him  began. 

Gradually,  the  jury  box  filled.  But  before  it  was 
completed  there  occurred  an  incident  of  the  prosecution 
even  more  startling  than  the  sending  of  cash  books  out 
of  the  State,  the  trailing  of  members  of  the  prosecu- 
tion by  agents  of  the  defense,^"  the  disappearance  of 
witnesses,  the  larceny  of  the  prosecution's  records,  or 
the  attempted  kidnaping  of  Witness  Lonergan  and 
Editor  Older. 

On  the  eve  of  taking  testimony  in  the  Ruef  case  an 
attempt  was  made  to  murder  James  L.  Gallagher  by 
dynamiting  his  residence.  Gallagher  was  the  pivotal 
witness  against  Ruef,  as  well  as  against  Ford,  then  on 
trial. 

In  the  Ruef  case,  Gallagher  had  taken  word  from 
Ruef  to  the  Supervisors  that  there  would  be  $750 — 
later  increased  to  $1000 — for  each  of  them  if  they 
granted  the  Parkside  franchise.  Without  Gallagher's 
testimony  the  case  against  Ruef  would  fall  flat. 

General  Ford's  third  trial  was  then  in  progress  and 
well  advanced.  Here  again,  Gallagher  was  the  pivotal 
witness.     He  had  taken  the  trolley  bribe  money   from 


375  Some  of  these  trailers  were  arrested  and  forced  into  court. 
On  one  day  four  men,  Franlc  Shaw,  alias  Harry  Nelson,  Harry 
Smith,  alias  Harry  Zobler,  J.  R.  Johnson,  alias  J.  R.  Hayes,  and 
Cliff  Middlemiss  were  placed  under  arrest  for  following  Detective 
Burns. 


34^        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

Riief  to  the  Supervisors.  He  supplied  the  Hnk  between 
those  who  had  been  bribed,  and  Ruef.  His  testimony 
was  indispensable  if  Ruef  and  Ford — then  on  trial — 
were  to  be  convicted.  His  testimony  was  equally  neces- 
sary in  the  cases  against  Calhoun,  Drum,  in  fact  all 
the  graft  defendants,  except  those  who  had  dealt  directly 
with  the  Supervisors. 

The  evening  of  the  day  following  Gallagher's  tes- 
timony in  the  Ford  case,  but  before  he  appeared  at  the 
Ruef  trial,  dynamite  was  exploded  at  the  front  doors 
of  the  house  in  which  he  was  residing.  The  dynamite 
had  been  placed  next  to  the  dining  room.  Gallagher 
was  at  the  time  living  at  the  home  of  W.  H.  H.  Schenck 
at  Oakland. 

So  violent  was  the  explosion  that  the  house,  a  frame 
building,  was  split  in  twain.  A  pillar  from  the  porch 
was  thrown  150  feet.  In  the  building  on  the  adjoining 
premises,  every  window  was  broken.  The  family  had 
just  completed  the  evening  meal  and  a  number  of  them 
were  still  seated  around  the  table.  The  table  was  split 
from  end  to  end.  At  the  moment  of  the  explosion,  one 
of  those  in  the  house  was  showing  a  curious  watch 
guard  and  had  the  watch  in  his  hand.  The  watch 
stopped,  thus  fixing  the  exact  time  of  the  explosion, 
7:30  P.  M. 

There  were  in  the  house  at  the  time  of  the  explo- 
sion, W.  H.  H.  Schenck  and  wife,  and  three  children, 
the  youngest  seven  years  old ;  Lieutenant  Guy  Brown 
of  the  National  Guard ;  and  Gallagher  and  his  wife. 
Every  one  in  the  building  was  thrown  down  by  the 
force  of  the  explosion,  but  extraordinary  to  say,  none 
of  them  was  seriously  injured.     Gallagher  and  his  wife 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        349 

were  in  an  upper  room  of  the  building.  The  stairway 
was  demolished,  and  Gallagher  was  obliged  to  lower 
his  wife  to  the  ground,  getting  down  himself  the  best 
way  he  could. 

A  month  later  three  buildings  in  Oakland  belonging 
to  Gallagher  were  destroyed  by  dynamite.  Soon  after 
this  second  explosion  a  young  Greek,  John  Claudianes, 
was  arrested  and  charged  with  the  outrage. 

Claudianes  made  full  confession,  involving  his 
brother  Peter  as  principal.  Peter  Claudianes  was  finally 
captured  at  Chicago.  On  his  return  to  San  Francisco 
he  confessed,^^®  stating  that  he  had  been  employed  by 


376  According-  to  Peter  Claudianes'  confession  to  Burns,  he  had 
been  summoned  from  Chico  to  San  Francisco  by  Felix  Pauduveris 
early  in  March.  Pauduveris  told  him  he  had  a  hard  piece  of  work 
for  Claudianes  to  do,  namely,  kill  Gallagher,  the  chief  witness  in  the 
graft  prosecution.  Pauduveris  had  told  him  there  was  $1000  apiece 
and  three  dollars  a  day  for  expenses  in  the  job  for  them.  The 
first  proposition,  according  to  Claudianes'  confession,  was  for 
Claudianes  to  shoot  poisoned  glass  into  Gallagher's  face  by  means 
of  an  ordinary  sling-shot.  But  this  plan  was  abandoned  on  the 
ground  that  Claudianes'  capture  would  be  sure  to  follow.  A  plan 
to  poison  Gallagher  was  also  abandoned.  Destruction  by  means  of 
dynamite  was  finally  decided  upon.  Pauduveris  had  taken  Claudi- 
anes over  to  Oakland  and  showed  him  where  Gallagher  resided. 
After  the  failure  of  the  dynamite  plot,  Claudianes  had  arranged  to 
secure  apartments  in  t'ne  same  building  with  Gallagher  and  put 
poison  into  Gallagher's  milk.  Before  this  plot  could  be  carried  out, 
John  Claudianes  had  confessed  and  Peter  had  become  a  fugitive 
from   justice. 

In  his  confession  to  Burns.  Peter  Claudianes  stated:  "Paudu- 
veris said  the  prosecution  with  Heney,  I.angdon,  Burns  and  Spreck- 
els  had  put  about  50,000  men  out  of  work.  We  must  get  rid  of 
Gallagher  as  he  is  their  principal  witness.  If  he  is  put  out  of  the 
way  the  Prosecution  will  end.  There  is  about  $2000  in  it  for  us 
and  about  $1000  in  it  for  your  brother  John.  Felix  Pauduveris  was 
very  angry  because  no  one  was  killed  in  the  explosion  at  the 
Schenck  house.     He  said   it  was  not  a  clean  job." 

In  his  confession,   Claudianes  stated   further: 

"I  thought  I  was  working  for  Ruef,  as  I  knew  Felix  was  a  very 
intimate  friend  of  his.  When  Felix  told  me  I  had  got  to  shadow 
Gallagher  I  knew  the  word  came  from  Rucf.  Felix  said  that  Ruef 
would  never  go  across  the  bay,  as  he  had  them  all  buffaloed.  Ruef 
was  too  smart  for  those  fellows,  Felix  said,  and  the  gang  was  all 
behind  Ruef.  The  prosecution  had  no  grudge  against  Gallagher,  but 
It  had   a  grudge  against  Ruef." 


350        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

a  Greek,  one  Felix  Pauduveris,^^^  to  murder  Gallagher. 
Felix  Pauduveris  fled  the  city  and  the  police  of  the 
world  have  been  unable  to  locate  him.  Peter  Claudianes 
was  convicted  of  the  attempt  upon  Gallagher's  life,  was 
sentenced  to  prison  for  life,  and  at  present  writing  is 
confined  in  San  Quentin  prison. ^^* 

Quite  as  extraordinary  as  the  attempted  assassina- 
tion of  Gallagher  was  the  indifference  with  which  the 
outrage  was  received  by  the  press  that  was  supporting 
the  graft  defense.^^"  The  Chronicle  condemned  the 
outrage,    but   took    occasion    to    denounce    Gallagher. ^^° 

377  Pauduveris  had  been  employed  by  the  United  Railroads  as 
a  "spotter."  At  the  time  of  the  explosion  he  was  still  in  that  cor- 
poration's employ.  He  was  at  the  same  time  a  political  follower 
of   Ruef. 

378  The  attempt  upon  Gallagher's  life  led  the  prosecution  to 
take  steps  to  secure  his  testimony  in  a  form  in  which  it  could  be 
used  before  a  trial  jury  in  the  event  of  Gallagher's  death.  Under 
the  California  law,  testimony  taken  at  a  preliminary  hearing  can, 
in  the  event  of  the  death  or  disability  of  a  witness,  be  used  at 
the  trial  of  the  case.  After  the  Parkside  case  trial,  Ruef  was 
arrested  on  a  charge  of  bribery  and  given  a  preliminary  examina- 
tion at  which  Gallagher  testified  against  him.  Gallagher's  testi- 
mony was  thus  made   secure  against   poison   or   dynamite. 

379  The  Examiner  following  the  explosion  printed  a  series  of 
ridiculing  cartoons  picturing  the  dynamiting  of  a  bird  cage  and 
describing  at  length  the  escape  of  the  parrot  that  had  occupied  it. 

380  The  Chronicle  took  advantage  of  the  dynamite  outrage  to 
voice  its  condemnation  of  Gallagher.  "There  is,"  said  that  paper 
in  its  issue  of  April  24,  "no  more  undesirable  citizen  on  earth  than 
the  contemptible  boodler  James  L.  Gallagher,  who  is  living  on  the 
profits  of  the  shame  which  he  brazenly  flaunts  in  the  face  of  man- 
kind, but  the  effort  to  discover  the  miscreant  who  dynamited  the 
house  where  he  was  living  should  be  pushed  as  vigorously  as  if 
the  intended  victim  was  the  most  estimable  citizen  of  California. 
Society  despises  such  boodlers  as  Gallagher,  but  it  does  not  seek 
their  destruction  by  dynamite.  The  dynamiter  is  a  coward  who  is 
even  more  contemptible  than  a  boodler.  He  sneaks  up  in  the  dark, 
fires  his  explosive  and  runs,  because  in  his  craven  soul  he  dare 
not  stand  up  and  meet  his  enemy.  The  punishment  of  the  dyna- 
miter— successful  or  unsuccessful — should  be  severe,  but  it  should  be 
solemnly  inflicted  after  due  process  of  law. 

"It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  some  of  the  wretches  with  whom 
he  was  associated  during  his  career  of  crime  have  taken  that 
method  of  getting  rid  of  his  testimony,  but  it  is  not  probable. 
Among  those  against  whom  he  has  not  yet  given  the  testimony 
which  he  will  give  are  the  only  persons  who  can  be  conceived  of 
as  having  a  motive  to  get  Gallagher  out  of  the  way,  but  no  one  that 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        351 

The  weekly  press,  however,  treated  the  affair  as  some- 
thing of  a  joke  on  the  confessed  bribe-taker.^®^ 

In  the  face  of  the  ridicule  of  the  graft-defense 
press,  the  dynamiting  of  witnesses,  and  the  continent- 
wide  hunt  for  the  dynamiters,  the  Ruef  trial  went 
steadily  on. 

One  incident  of  the  beginning  of  the  trial,  because 
of  the  event  that  grew  out  of  it,  eventually  proved  even 
more  important  than  the  trial  itself. 

During  the  examination  of  jurors,  an  ex-convict, 
one  Morris  Haas,  was  discovered  to  have  been  sworn 
to  try  the  case.     Heney  exposed  him  and  he  was  ex- 


we  hear  of  suspects  any  of  them  of  having  resorted  to  that  atro- 
cious method  of  defense,  in  which  six  persons  besides  Gallagher 
himself  came  near  being  murdered.  In  the  absence  of  any  conceiva- 
ble sufficient  motive  the  dastardly  act  must  be  assumed  the  work  of 
a  wicked  man  gone  crazy." 

381  The  following  from  the  San  Francisco  Argonaut  of  May  2, 
190S,  is  fairly  expressive  of  the  attitude  of  the  San  Francisco  weekly 
press  on  the  attempt  on  Gallagher's  life:  "Mr.  Heney  in  so  far  as 
it  lay  in  him  to  do  it,  'placed'  the  'crime'  upon  the  'minions'  of 
Calhoun.  The  other  independent  and  all-seeing  minds  of  the  prose- 
cution's staft  fell  in  with  this  theory  of  the  case.  So  far  as  the  so- 
called  graft  prosecutors  are  concerned  there  is  no  mystery  about 
the  matter — the  explosion  in  Gallagher's  house  was  nothing  less 
than  an  attempt  to  assassinate  that  eminent  worthy  for  the  sake 
of  'getting  him  out  of  the  way.'  This  theory  has  to  face  several 
embarrassing  considerations.  In  the  first  place,  Gallagher's  testi- 
mony has  been  given  again  and  again,  and  stands  as  an  official 
record  in  a  half-dozen  instances.  Getting  Gallagher  out  of  the 
way  would  not,  therefore,  do  away  with  his  testimony.  Further- 
more, there  are  other  witnesses  competent  to  testify  to  every  vital 
fact  in  the  Gallagher  story.  So  far  as  the  immediate  case  is  con- 
cerned, Gallagher  has  already  given  his  testimony  and  the  effect 
of  'getting  him  out  of  the  way'  would  be  only  to  emphasize  his 
statements.  Furthermore,  if  there  had  been  any  wish  to  get  Galla- 
gher out  of  the  way  there  has  been  plenty  of  chances  to  do  it  any 
time  this  year  and  a  half  past.  If  assassination  has  been  part  of 
the  scheme  of  the  defense,  there  have  been  ten  thousand  opportuni- 
ties since  the  striking  of  that  famous  bargain  between  Spreckels 
and  Gallagher  inside  the  Presidio  gate.  The  thing  might  have  been 
done,  too,  without  hazarding  the  lives  of  half  a  dozen  women  and 
children." 

In  view  of  the  inability  of  Mr.  Langdon's  successor  in  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney's  office  to  make  effective  prosecution  of  the  graft 
cases,  on  the  ground  that  Gallagher,  who  had  left  California,  was 
absent  from  the  State,  and  that  his  testimony  was  necessary  to 
secure  convictions,  the  Argonaut  article  makes  interesting  reading. 


352        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

cused  from  service. ^-^  The  incident,  compared  with 
the  other  tremendous  happenings  of  the  time,  was  of 
small  importance,  but  it  was  destined  to  lead  to  the 
greatest  outrage  of  all  the  history  of  the  prosecution, 
the  shooting  down  of  Assistant  District  Attorney  Heney 
in  open  court.  But  for  the  time,  Haas  passed  out  of 
the  graft  cases  and  was  forgotten. 

The  Ruef  trial  was  not  unlike  the  Ford  trials.  The 
courtroom  was  packed  with  detectives,  agents  and 
thugs  employed  by  the  various  graft  defendants.^^' 
There  was  the  same  hesitancy  on  the  part  of  witnesses. 
At  one  stage  of  the  proceedings  Ach,  Ruef's  chief  of 
counsel,  sneered  that  the  State  was  having  trouble  with 
its  own  witness. 

"Yes,"  replied  Heney,  "The  People  have  no  wit- 
ness— no  volunteer  witnesses.  We  merely  produce 
them." 

When  J.  E.  Green,  president  of  the  Parkside  Com- 
pany, who  had  authorized  the  payments  to  Ruef,  re- 
fused to  testify  on  the  ground  that  he  might  incrim- 
inate himself,  it  looked  as  though  the  case  was  going 
against  the  prosecution.  But  Heney  met  this  objection. 
He  promptly  moved  the  dismissal  of  the  fourteen  in- 
dictments pending  against  Green.^®*  Ach  objected,  but 
the  motion  was  granted.     Green  was  left  free  to  testify. 


382  Heney's  exposure  of  Haas  was  unquestionably  warranted  and 
necessary.  The  incident,  however,  has  been  made  subject  of  much 
misrepresentation  and  attacks  upon  Heney. 

383  Heney  in  a  speech  made  before  Mayor  and  Supervisors 
sliowed  how  the  prosecution  was  harassed  by  thugs. 

384  See  transcript  in  The  People  vs.  Ruef  (Parkside  case)  for 
dismissal  of  these  indictments  and  of  other  indictments  against 
Parkside  officials. 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        353 

Green  testified  how  he  had  sent  his  attorney, ^^^ 
Judge  Walter  C.  Cope,  to  Ruef  to  find  out  what  Ruef 
was  after.  Ruef  wanted  $50,000  to  put  the  franchise 
through.  Green  testified  that  Ruef  finally  agreed  to 
take  $30,000,  and  was  actually  paid  $15,000  on  account. 

G.  H.  Umbsen  testified  to  having  received  $30,000 
from  the  Parkside  Company  for  Ruef  and  had  paid 
Ruef  $15,000,  the  balance  being  held  until  the  deal 
should  be  consummated.  In  addition  to  this,  the  sorry 
manner  ^^^  in  which  the  company's  books  had  been 
juggled  to  cover  up  the  transaction  was  shown  by  wit- 
nesses connected  with  the   Parkside   Company. 

Ruef's  intimation  through  his  attorney  that  the 
money  had  been  paid  as  a  fee  was  offset  by  testimony 
that  the  books  had  been  juggled  to  cover  up  the  pay- 
ment to  Ruef  because  Ruef  was  the  political  boss  of 
the  city,  and  it  was  believed  that  it  would  do  the  com- 
pany no  good  if  the  fact  of  his  employment  were  known. 

Gallagher  testified  that  he  had  been  Ruef's  repre- 
sentative on  the  board ;  that  Ruef  had  told  him  that 
the  Parkside  franchise  was  to  be  held  up  and  delayed ; 
that  later  Ruef  had  stated  that  each  Supervisor  would 
receive  $750  because  of  the  Parkside  deal ;  that  finally, 
after  the  fire,  Ruef  had  told  witness  that  the  Parkside 
people  wanted  the  franchise  in  a  new  form,  and  that 
the  $750  to  each  Supervisor  would  be  increased  to 
$1,000;  that  he  (Gallagher)  had  conveyed  this  informa- 
tion to  the  Supervisors.  Supervisors  testified  to  having 
been  given  the  information   by  Gallagher. 

385  For  additional   data   regarding-   tliis   case,   see   Cliapter  XIV, 
footnotes   180,    181,   198,    199,    200,   201. 

386  See  footnote  199. 
12 


354        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

Ruef  offered  no  testimony.  The  jury  was  out  forty- 
three  hours.  By  a  vote  of  6  to  6  the  jury  failed  to 
agree.  Again  a  graft  trial  had  ended  in  discouraging 
failure  for  the  prosecution. ^^^ 

After  the  disagreement  of  the  jury  in  the  Ruef 
Parkside  case,  to  judge  from  most  of  the  San  Fran- 
cisco public  prints  of  the  time,  the  prosecution  was 
utterly  discredited  in  San  Francisco.  But  there  is  a 
surer  means  of  estimating  public  opinion — namely,  by 
the  votes  of  the  people. 

Much  of  the  graft  defense's  abuse  and  vilification 
was  heaped  upon  Judges  Lawlor  and  Dunne,  who  had 
stood  firmly  for  enforcement  of  the  law  regardless  of 
who  might  be  affected.  Judge  Dunne's  term  as  Supe- 
rior Judge  was  to  expire  in  1909.  Fie  was,  at  the 
November  election  of  1908,  a  candidate  for  re-election. 

Judge  Dunne  was  frankly  fought  by  the  graft  de- 
fense, and  supported  by  those  who  approved  the  work 
of  the  prosecution.  The  Republican  county  convention 
refused  to_  nominate  him,  and  hissed  his  name.  The 
Union  Labor  party  convention  received  his  name  with 
a  turmoil  of  hoots  and  jeers.  A  letter  to  the  last-named 
convention  from  the  Good  Government  League  urging 
his  nomination  was  thrown  into  the  waste-paper  basket. 


387  Months  after,  when  men  had  been  indicted  for  endeavoring 
to  influence  jurors  to  vote  for  Ruef's  acquittal  in  the  United  Rail- 
roads case,  Isaac  Penny,  who  liad  acted  as  foreman  of  the  jury 
that  failed  to  agree  in  the  Parkside  case,  in  a  public  statement 
denounced  that  jury  as  not  honest.  "Had  I  known  then,"  said 
Penny  in  an  interview  printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  Septem- 
ber 30,  1908,  "what  I  have  since  learned  about  jury  tampering,  I 
would  have  sprung  a  sensation  in  Judge  Doollng's  court  that  would 
have  resulted  in  the  haling  of  numerous  men  before  the  court. 
*  *  *  I  have  been  turning  this  over  again  and  again  in  my  mind, 
and  there  is  but  one  answer — that  jury  was  not  an  honest  one." 

Later,  Penny  gave  sensational  testimony  along  this  line  in 
Judge  Lawlor's  court. 


The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant        355 

On  the  other  hand,  when  given  opportunity  for 
expression  The  People  gave  Judge  Dunne  encouraging 
endorsement.  The  Good  Government  League  proceeded 
to  have  his  name  put  on  the  ballot  by  petition.  For 
the  petition  1,765  signatures  were  required.  Over  3,000 
persons  signed  it  the  first  day.  The  press — outside  San 
Francisco — following  the  graft  trials  closely,  was  prac- 
tically a  unit  in  urging  Judge  Dunne's  return  to  the 
bench. ^^^  And  in  spite  of  the  costly  contest  of  his 
election,  The  People  of  San  Francisco  re-elected  Judge 
Dunne. 

Thus  again  were  the  contentions  of  the  graft  de- 
fense repudiated  at  the  polls. 

Another  important  endorsement  of  the  prosecution 
came  from  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  The  Supervisors 
provided  in  their  annual  budget  $70,000  to  meet  the 
extraordinary  expenditures  because  of  the  graft  cases. 
Burns  and  the  men  who  had  theretofore  been  paid  out 
of  the  fund  controlled  by  Rudolph  Spreckels,  became 
regular  municipal  employees  operating  under  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney. 


388  From  one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other,  ,Tudge  Dunne  was 
warmly  commended  as  a  jurist  and  a  man.  "The  name  of  Judge 
Dunne,"  said  the  Pasadena  News,  "stands  in  California  honored 
among:  honest  men  because  of  tlie  enemies  he  has  made.  Every 
politician  and  every  newspaper  that  has  defended  bribery  and 
sought  to  embarrass  the  graft  prosecution  is  against  Judge  Dunne. 
They  stocked  a  political  convention  against  him.  Judge  Dunne's 
defeat  in  San  Francisco  would  be  a  disgrace  to  tliat  city  and  a 
reflection  on  the  honor  and  intelligence  of  the  people  of  California." 

"The  corrupt  corporation  organs,"  said  the  Sacramento  Bee, 
"and  the  servile  journalistic  tools  of  the  predatory  rich — such  as 
the  Argonaut,  for  instance — are  harking  In  unison  at  th.e  heels  of 
Judge  Dunne  in  San  Francisco  and  declaring  he  is  unfit  to  sit  on 
the  bench.  Dunne's  crime  in  their  eyes  is  that  I;e  did  his  simple, 
plain  duty  in  the  graft  prosecution  cases.  If  he  had  neglected  that 
duty,  to  tip  the  scales  of  Justice  over  to  favor  tlie  'higher  ups,' 
the  same  gang,  with  the  Argonaut  in  the  lead,  would  be  praising 
him  to  the  skies  as  a  most  just  judge,  a  righteous  judge,  and  would 
be  clamoring  for  his  re-election." 


3^6        The  Defense  Becomes  Arrogant 

The  criticism  of  the  defense  had  been  that  it  was 
shameful  that  a  privately-financed  prosecution  should 
be  tolerated.  Their  cry  now  was  at  the  shame  of 
wasting  the  public  funds  on  Burns  and  his  staff.  Ac- 
tion was  instituted,  through  William  H.  Metson,  to 
prevent  the  municipal  officials  paying  Burns  and  his 
associates  out  of  this  fund.  For  months  the  salaries 
of  those  affected  were  held  up.  Although  eventually 
the  opposition  to  the  prosecution  lost  in  the  contest, 
and  the  men  were  paid  the  amounts  due  them,  the  suit 
was  an  annoyance  and  a  handicap. 

But  in  spite  of  the  tremendous  opposition  which  the 
graft  defense  was  working  up,  the  prosecution  went 
steadily  on  with  its  work.  Ruef  was  put  to  trial  for 
offering  a  bribe  to  Supervisor  Furey  to  vote  for  the 
permit  giving  the  United  Railroads  its  overhead  trolley 
franchise. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Jury-Fixing  Uncovered. 

From  the  beginning  of  the  graft  trials  rumors  of 
efforts  to  tamper  with  the  trial  jurors  had  been  current. 
The  failures  of  juries  to  agree  in  the  face  of  what  to 
the  man  on  the  street  appeared  to  be  conclusive  evi- 
dence, lent  more  or  less  color  to  these  reports.  But 
it  was  not  until  Ruef's  trial  ^^^  for  offering  a  bribe  in 
the  over-head  trolley  transaction  opened,  that  the  jury- 
fixing  scandal  took  definite  shape.  Then,  came  sensa- 
tional exposures,  involving  indictments  and  trials  for 
jury-fixing  which  for  a  time  over-shadowed  in  interest 
the  graft  trials  themselves. 

Ruef's  trial  for  offering  a  bribe  to  Supervisor  Furey 
to  vote  for  the  over-head  trolley   franchise,  began   Au- 


389  Of  the  "fixing  of  juries,"  The  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  Sep- 
tember 19,  1908,  said:  "Every  move  made  in  the  Ruef  trials  gives 
moral  evidence  that  systematic  bribery  of  juries  is  being  prac- 
ticed which  is  as  convincing  to  the  public  as  were  the  signs  of 
corruption  during  the  entire  Schmitz  regime,  but  before  the  ex- 
plosion. Nobody  doubted  then  that  the  Mayor,  the  Supervisors 
and  all  officials  appointed  by  Schmitz  were  thieves.  Nobody 
doubts  now  that  all  through  these  graft  trials  there  has  been  sys- 
tematic corruption  of  juries.  In  private  conversation  it  is  treated 
as  a  matter  of  course.  Nobody,  of  course,  could  'prove'  it.  Nobody 
needs  legal   proof   to   be   convinced." 

Of  the  incident,  The  Call  said  in  its  issue  of  September  19, 
1908:  "For  a  long  time  there  has  been  every  reason  to  believe 
that  veniremen  summoned  to  try  Ruef  were  being  bribed  or 
promised  bribes  to  vote  for  acquittal.  The  dubious  character  of 
Ruef's  attorneys,  or  some  of  them,  and  their  known  alHliations 
were  wholly  consistent  with  this  theory.  Circumstances  not 
amounting  to  absolute  proof,  but  giving  cause  for  strong  suspicion, 
came  to  the  surface  from  time  to  time.  The  jury  fixers  grew 
bolder  with  impunity,  and,  in  fine,  the  pitcher  went  to  the  well 
once   too  often." 


35^  Jury-Fixing  Uncovered 

gust  27,  1908.^^°  But  nearly  a  month  before,  on  July 
31,  District  Attorney  Langdon  had  been  given  definite 
information  that  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  bribe 
one  of  the  talesmen  who.  had  been  called  for  jury  serv- 
ice at  the  Ruef  trial.  The  talesman  in  question  was 
John  Martin  Kelly,  a  real  estate  salesman. 

The  list  of  prospective  jurors  had  been  made  public 
in  July.  Late  on  the  afternoon  of  July  31,  Mr.  Lang- 
don  received  a  telephone  message  from  Kelly  requesting 
an  interview,  which  was  granted  immediately. 

Kelly   told    Langdon  ^^^    that   that   afternoon   he   had 

390  The  trial  had  been  delayed  by  Ruef  s  preliminary  hearing. 
The  hearing  was  held  in  order  that  Gallagher's  testimony  might 
become  of  record  in  a  way  that  would  permit  of  its  being  used  at 
Ruef's   trial,    in    the    event   of   Gallagher's   assassination. 

Ruef's  attorneys  by  lengthy  cross-examinations  and  other  de- 
laying tactics,  succeeded  in  dragging  the  case  along  for  sixty-nine 
days.  Further  delays  were  caused  by  the  usual  efforts  made  to 
disqualify  Judge  Lawlor  as  trial  judge.  In  this  way,  the  defense 
managed  to  keep  the  attorneys  for  the  State  engaged  until  late 
in  August.     Then  Ruef  was  made  to  face  another  jury. 

391  Kelly  claimed  to  have  telephoned  Langdon  within  a  few 
minutes  after  Blake  had  left  him.  In  this  he  was  borne  out  by 
his  employer,  Samuel  M.  Snyder.  Snyder  testified  that  on  his  re- 
turn to  his  office  on  the  afternoon  of  July  31,  he  met  Blake  leav- 
ing. Kelly  had  followed  him  into  his  private  office.  Of  the  inter- 
view which  followed  Snyder  testified  at  the  hearing  of  the  case 
as    follows: 

"I  said  (to  Kelly)  'Well,  what  is  the  matter  now?'  And  he 
said  that  Mr.  Blake  was  just  in  and  wanted  to  give  him  $500.  I  said, 
'What  for?'  'Well,'  he  said,  'to  do  the  right  thing  on  the  jury.' 
He  had  been  called  on  a  jury  case,  the  Ruef  case.  He  said,  'I  had 
a  notion  to  punch  his  head.'  That  is  just  the  remark  Mr.  Kelly 
used.  I  said,  'Oh,  I  would  not  get  excited  like  that;  that  is  fool- 
ishness.' He  said,  'What  do  you  advise  doing?  If  I  go  out  and 
do  anything  rash  I  am  liable  to  get  into  trouble,  ain't  I?'  I  said, 
'Yes,  you  better  not  do  that.'  I  said,  'If  I  were  you' — this  is  the 
language  I  used  to  Mr.  Kelly,  I  said,  'I  would  telephone  to  Mr. 
Langdon  and  tell  him.'  He  said.  'Well,  that  might  hurt  your 
business.'  I  said,  'Well,  I  don't  believe  that  would  hurt  my  busi- 
ness any.  I  firmly  believe  that  jurors  should  not  be  tampered 
with  by  anyone  to  try  any  case,  no  matter  what  it  is.'  And  from 
there  he  did  telephone  to  Mr.  Langdon. 

The  Court:     "When  was  this,   Mr.   Snyder?" 

"A.  That  was  on  the  31st  of  July,  pretty  close  to  5  o'clock  In 
the  afternoon. 

"Q.  Did  Mr.  Kelly  call  up  a  telephone  number  from  the  office 
at  that  time? 

"A.  He  called  up  Mr.  Langdon  from  the  office  at  that  time. 
I  was  sitting  right  by   the  side  of  him." 


Jury-Fixing  Uncovered  359 

been  approached  by  a  building  contractor,  E.  A.  S. 
Blake,  and  offered  $500  if  he  would  qualify  on  the 
Ruef  jury  and  vote  for  acquittal. ^''- 

Langdon  called  in  Burn?.  Burns  advised  Kelly  to 
pretend  to  listen  to  Blake's  overtures,  to  insist  that 
$500  was  too  little,  and  to  demand  $1000,  to  the  end 
that  Blake  might  be  trapped  and  the  jury-fixing,  which 
all  believed  to  be  going  on,  be  uncovered. 

Kelly,  co-operating  with  Burns,  followed  these  in- 
structions. In  his  dealings  with  Blake,  Kelly  insisted 
upon  $1000  as  the  price  of  his  services  in  Ruef's  behalf, 
which  Blake  finally  consented  should  be  paid  him.  The 
negotiations  were  carried  on  during  August.  Finally 
on  September  3,  Burns  directed  Kelly  to  step  up  to  the 
bar  of  Judge  Lawlor's  court  where  Ruef's  trial  was 
proceeding,  and  tell  his  story. 

As  Kelly  on  that  day  approached  the  bar,  during  a 
lull  in  the  proceedings,  Ach,  it  is  alleged,  was  heard  to 
ejaculate  to  the  little  group  about  Ruef,  "There  she 
goes." 

392  Of  Blake's  negotiations  Kelly  testified:  "Mr.  Blake  began 
about  this  way:  He  said.  'Now,  John,  I  have  got  a  proposition  to 
make  to  you,  and  I  don't  know  how  you  will  take  it.  If  you  like 
it,  all  right,  if  you  don't,  just  keep  it  quiet.'  He  says,  'There  is 
a  chance  for  you  to  make  a  little  money.'  He  said,  'You  are 
drawn  to  serve  on  the  Ruef  jury.'  I  was  surprised  to  hear  that. 
I  told  him,  'I  know  I  am  on  some  panel  in  Judge  Lawlor's  Court, 
but  didn't  know  it  was  the  Ruef  jury.'  I  said,  'How  did  you  find 
out?'  'Oh,'  he  said — I  think  he  said  a  friend  of  his  told  him,  or 
something  like  that;  but  anyhow  he  said,  'Now,  it  is  this  way; 
there  is  $500  in  it  for  you  if  you  will  get  on  tliat  jury  and  vote 
to  acquit  Mr.  Ruef.'  I  says,  'Well,  Mr.  Blake,  I  iiave  never  done 
anything  like  that,  and  it  is  a  pretty  big  chance  to  take.  I  don't 
want  anything  like  that';  and  he  began  to  urge  it  on  me.  I  said, 
'Now,   give  me  a   chance   to   think   it  over.'  " 

Kelly  testified  that  his  first  impulse  was  to  denounce  Blake. 
But  instantly  he  reflected  that  the  denunciation  would  do  no  good. 
Besides,   he  reflected,   it  was  possible  that   Blake  might  be  trapped. 

x\s  soon  as  Blake  left  the  office.  Kelly  told  what  hud  occurred 
to  his  employer,  Snyder,  and  within  an  hour  was  in  consultation 
with   District  Attorney  Langdon  and  Burns. 


360  Jury-Fixing  Uncovered 

Frank  J.  Murphy,  one  of  Ruef's  attorneys,  imme- 
diately jumped  to  his  feet,  and  claimed  the  court's  at- 
tention. 

"If  your  honor  please,"  said  Murpliy,  "if  that  com- 
pletes the  examination  of  this  panel  and  it  is  necessary 
to  draw  further  from  the  box,  there  is  a  statement  I 
desire  to  make  to  this  Court  which  is  based  upon  some 
reflection  and  upon  the  advice  of  the  Presiding  Judge 
of  this  court.  Some  several  weeks  ago,  or  about  two 
weeks  ago  I  should  say,  one  of  the  jurors  upon  this 
panel  sent  to  me  indirectly  and  offered  to  accept  money 
for  his  vote.  Charges  of  bribery,  of  course,  have  been 
numerous  in  connection  with  this  case,  but  this  is  the 
first  instance  that  I  have  ever  heard  of  in  connection 
with  this  case  or  in  connection  with  any  other  case  that 
any  juror  has  solicited  a  bribe,  or  has  been  offered  a 
bribe.  I  consulted  with  Judge  Sturtevant  ^^^  about  the 
matter  on  the  1st  of  September.  I  stated  to  him  the 
facts  in  the  case  and  he  advised  me  that  whenever  the 
time  became  ripe  for  the  juror  to  be  called  into  the  box 
that  it  was  my  duty  to  present  it  to  this  court.  Now, 
the  juror's  name  is  John  Martin  Kelly,  and  I  was  in- 
formed indirectly  that  Mr.  Kelly  solicited  $1000  for  his 
vote  in  this  case,  and  the  matter  is  of  so  much  impor- 
tance, your  Honor,  that  I  think  an  investigation  should 


393  Judge  Sturtevant,  at  the  investigation  which  followed,  showed 
himself  not  at  all  clear  as  to  details.     Finally  Murphy  asked  him: 

"Q.  Judge,  do  you  remember  that  I  said  to  you  that  I  had 
information  that  one  of  the  jurors  was  willing  to  sell  his  vote  for 
$1,000   and   someone   had   come   to   me  with   that? 

"A.  I  remember,  Mr.  Murphy,  you  mentioned  the  amount  of 
$1,000  regarding  one  of  his  statements,  but  I  would  not  go  further 
than  that;  I  don't  remember  what  this  man  had  agreed  to  do  for 
the  thousand  dollars.  That  is  iny  general  recollection  that  that  is 
about  the  substance  of  the  statement  you  made  to  me." 


Jury-Fixing  Uncovered  361 

be  had  by  this  court  before  this  case  proceeds  further, 
and  if  necessary  the  Grand  Jury  should  look  into  this 
matter  and  give  it  a  thorough  and  exhaustive  examina- 
tion. Now,  if  your  Honor  please,  I  don't  want  to  do 
Mr.  Kelly  an  injustice.  I  would  hesitate,  if  the  Court 
please,  to  make  a  charge  of  tliat  kind,  but  my  informant 
is  a  man  whom  I  have  known  but  a  very  short  time, 
and  after  a  thorough  examination  by  me  of  him,  after 
eliciting  from  him  every  fact  I  could  in  connection  with 
the  case,  I  am  induced  to  believe  that  he  came  with 
authority  from  Mr.  Kelly  to  make  this  proposition  to 
myself  and  one  of  the  attorneys  who  was  connected 
with  one  of  the  other  cases.  Now,  if  the  Court  please, 
under  the  advice  of  Judge  Sturtevant,  whom  I  consulted 
on  the  subject  twice,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  call  that  to 
the  attention  of  your  Honor  and  if  it  is  necessary  to 
file  any  affidavit  to  set  the  machinery  of  this  court  in 
motion  I  am  willing  and  ready  to  procure  an  affidavit 
to  file  so  that  a  complete  investigation  may  be  had  of 
this  matter." 

Murphy's  statement  created  a  sensation,  which  was 
more  than  duplicated  by  the  statement  made  by  Heney 
the  moment  after. 

"If  the  Court  please,"  said  Hency.  "before  Mr.  Mur- 
phy takes  the  stand  I  have  a  statement  to  make.  Mr. 
Murphy  says  that  he  discussed  this  subject  on  the  1st. 
I  have  in  my  pocket  a  statement  dictated  by  Mr.  Kelly 
— this  is  one  of  the  most  audacious  pieces  of  business  I 
have  yet  met  with — I  have  a  statement  made  by  this 
juror  on  August  28,  1908,  that  is  before  Mr.  Murphy 
bethought  him  to  go  and  see  Judge  Sturtevant.  in  which 
this   juror  sets   ftirth   fidlv  the   fact  that  a  man  was  sent 


362  Jury-Fixing  Uncovered 

to  him  to  bribe  him  in  this  case,  and  this  juror  not  only 
made  that  statement  on  August  28th,  but  this  juror 
went  to  the  District  Attorney's  office,  to  Mr.  Langdon, 
the  other  day,  on  July  31st,  the  day  it  was  made,  it  is  a 
long  time  now  and  he  has  been  acting  under  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney's  advice  ever  since,  and  Mr.  Murphy 
never  saw  fit  to  call  your  Honor's  attention  to  it  until 
he  saw  Mr.  Kelly  come  in  the  door  there  and  antici- 
pated from  the  fact  that  Mr.  Blake  was  traced  to  Mr. 
Ach's  office  yesterday  that  Mr.  Kelly  was  about  to  state 
to  your  Honor  that  he  wanted  this  matter  investigated, 
and  that  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  bribe  him,  and 
that  under  the  District  Attorney's  advice  he  was  going 
on  to  permit  them  to  pay  the  money,  if  necessary,  so 
that  we  might  catch  them  in  this  act,  and  it  is  only 
because  they  have  had  occasion  to  suspect  we  knew  it, 
that  Mr.  Murphy  has  the  audacity  to  come  in  here  and 
ask  for  an  investigation.  Now,  we  ask  that  Mr.  Kelly 
take  the  stand  and  make  the  statement  to  your  Honor 
that  he  came  here  for  the  purpose  of  making,  and  that 
Mr.  Murphy  didn't  say  anything  about  until  he  saw  him 
standing  there  ready  to  make  it  to  your  Honor.  He 
jumped  up  as  soon  as  he  saw  Mr.  Kelly  walk  in  here." 
After  Heney  had  made  his  statement,  Murphy  took 
the  stand  and  swore  that  Kelly,  through  Blake,  had 
solicited  a  bribe  of  $1000  from  Murphy  to  vote  for 
Ruef's  acquittal.  Nevertheless,  Mr.  Murphy,  as  well  as 
Mr.  A.  S.  Newburgh,  another  of  Ruef's  attorneys,  ad- 
mitted under  oath  that  they  had  suggested  to  Blake 
that  he  interview  Kelly. ^^* 

.394  Murphy's    testimony   on    this    point    was   as   follows:      "On    a 
day  between  the  20tli  of  July  and  the  1st  day  of  August,   I  went 


Jury-Fixing  Uncovered  363 

Kelly  took  the  stand  and  testified  in  a  straightfor- 
ward manner  that  he  had  been  approached  by  Rlake, 
that  he  had  consulted  with  the  District  Attorney,  and 
that  a  trap  had  been  set  to  catch  the  alleged  jury-fixer. 

Detectives  were  sent  out  to  notify  Blake  that  he 
was  wanted  in  court.  But  Blake  could  not  be  found. 
Later  he  was  arrested  as  he  was  about  to  board  an 
outgoing  train. 

Blake  was  found  to  be  a  poor  man  on  the  brink  of 
bankruptcy.  He  had  neither  money,  nor  property.  Nev- 
ertheless,   attorneys  ^^^    came    forward    to    defend    him ; 

to  the  office  of  Mr.  Newburgh.  Mr.  Newburgh  was  then  engaged  in 
defending  Mr.  Ruef  on  a  preliminary  examination  had  in  one  of 
the  Parkside  eases.  We  were  discussing  generally  the  Ruef  cases 
and  the  graft  prosecution,  and  a  man  came  into  the  office  who 
was  introduced  to  me  by  Mr.  Newburgh  as  E.  A.  S.  Blake.  This 
present  jury  panel  had  been  drawn,  and  we  were  discussing  the 
Ruef  cases  generally,  and  finally  I  made  a  remark  that  the  trial 
of  Mr.  Ruef  in  one  of  these  cases — referring  to  1436,  1437  and  1438, 
would  proceed  as  soon  as  the  Police  Court  examination  was  fin- 
ished, and  I  stated  that  a  jury  had  been  impaneled,  or  a  jury  had 
been  drawn,  I  had  a  list  of  the  jury  in  my  pocket,  and  I  pulled 
it  out  and  said  to  both  Mr.  Newburgh  and  to  Mr.  Blake:  'Perhaps 
you  might  know  some  of  these  people.'  Mr.  Blake  glanced  at  the 
list,  and  he  came  down  to  the  name  of  Mr.  Kelly,  and  he  said,  'I 
know  Mr.  Kelly;  I  have  known  him  for  a  number  of  years;  I  used 
to  work  at  Shreve's  jewelry  store  with  him;  and  he  is  an  intimate 
acquaintance  of  mine.'  Then  I  said,  having  in  mind  the  decision 
of  your  Honor  in  the  contempt  case  of  W.  J.  Burns  nnd  others — " 

The  Court:  (interruption):  "Did  this  occur  after  that  de- 
cision?" 

"A.  Tes — no,  your  Honor — I  don't  know — no,  no.  But  having 
in  mind — I  will  state  what  I  had  in  mind — a  statement  your  Honor 
had  made  at  some  previous  time,  that  either  side  had  the  right 
to  find  out  how  the  jury  stood;  that  is,  if  they  used  legitimate 
means.  I  said  to  Mr.  Blake,  I  said.  'How  do  you  think  Mr.  Kelly 
stands  on  the  graft  prosecution?'  'Well,'  he  said,  'Mr.  Kelly  is  a 
very  liberal-minded  fellow  and  I  think  he  would  give  Ruef  a 
square  deal.'  So  I  then  said,  'W^ell,  I  would  like  to  find  out 
whether  any  of  Mr.  Burns'  gumshoe  men  have  interviewed  him, 
or  whether  he  belongs  to  the  Good  Government  League  or  the 
League  of  Justice  or  any  kindred  organizations.'  He  said  he  would 
find  out  the  next  time  he  met  Mr.   Kelly." 

See  printed  transcript  on  appeal  The  People  vs.  Abraham  Ruef, 
Part  II,  Vol.  II,  p.  878.  For  Newburgh's  statement  see  same  tran- 
script,  part  and  volume,  pages  943  and  944. 

395  In  this  there  was  remarkable  similarity  to  the  legal  assist- 
ance given  thugs  who  were  from  time  to  time  arrested  for  inter- 
fering with  the  work  of  the  Prosecution. 


364  Jury-Fixing  Uncovered 

bonds  were  furnished  him.  The  most  powerful  and 
wealthy  defendant  in  the  graft  cases  was  not  better 
served.  But  the  best  of  legal  service  could  not  save 
Blake  from  indictment.  Later,  both  Newburgh  and 
Murphy,^^®  Mr.  Ruef's  attorneys,  were  indicted  also, 
charged  with  corruptly  attempting  to  influence  a  juror.^^'^ 
Kelly,  at  Blake's  trial,  told  the  same  straightforward 
story  which  he  had  given  at  the  original  investigation. 
He  was  corroborated  by  his  employer,  and  others.  His 
testimony  was  most  sensational.  He  stated,  for  exam- 
ple, that  Blake  had  told  him  that  it  would  be  easy  for 
him  to  qualify  as  a  juror;  that  Ruef's  attorneys  would 
try  to  make  it  appear  that  they  did  not  want  him,  and 
that  their  examination  would  be  so  thorough  that  the 
prosecution  would  not  ask  a  question.  Blake  had  also 
told  him,  Kelly  testified,  that  he  need  not  worry;  that 
some  jurors  had  taken  money  for  their  votes  in  the 
former  Ruef  trial  and  had  not  been  caught. 

396  Murphy  had  figured  in  the  Ruef  trials,  somewhat  sensa- 
tionally, from  the  beginning.  "When,  for  instance,  Ruef,  early  in 
March,  1907,  was  a  fugitive  from  justice.  Murphy  was  acting  as 
one  of  his  attorneys.  He  was  placed  on  the  stand  in  Judge  Dunne's 
court.  The  Chronicle,  in  its  issue  of  March  7,  1907,  contained  the 
following  account  of  his  testimony: 

"Frank  J.  Murphy,  one  of  Ruef's  lawyers,  testified  that  he  had 
last  seen  Ruef  just  outside  Hebbard's  courtroom  on  Monday. 

"Have   you   been  doing  any  business   with   him   since?" 

"Murphy  declined  to  answer  this  under  his  privilege  as  an 
attorney.  'We  are  looking  for  an  absconding  and  hostile  defendant, 
and  the  v»itness  should  not  be  allowed  to  draw  conclusions  as  to 
whether  the  business  he  is  doing  for  him  is  privileged,'  declared 
Hiram  Johnson. 

"Heney  suggested  that  it  was  tlie  request  to  do  this  business 
rather  than  the  business  itself,  that  was  sought  by  the  Prosecution. 

"A  compromise  was  effected  on  an  answer  by  the  witness  that 
he  had  not  communicated  directly  or  indirectly  with  Ruef  during 
the  past  forty-eight  hours." 

397  About  the  same  time,  Captain  John  J.  West  became  in- 
volved in  a  charge  of  being  connected  with  an  alleged  attempt  to 
corruptly  influence  a  talesman  named  John  R.  Foley  to  vote  to 
acquit  Ruef.  But  the  West  case  was  so  overshadowed  in  impor- 
tance by  the  Blake-Murphy-Newburgh  proceedings  that  the  pub- 
lic paid  comparatively  little  attention  to  it. 


Jury-Fixing  Uncovered  365 

Blake  was  convicted.  He  was  later  sentenced  to 
serve  four  years  in  the  penitentiary.  After  Blake's  con- 
viction, but  before  sentence  was  passed  upon  him,  he 
sought  out  Attorney  Matt  T.  Sullivan,  one  of  the  few 
prominent  San  Francisco  attorneys  who  had  kept  free 
from  entangling-  alliances  with  the  graft  defense.  To 
Sullivan,  Blake  made  confession  ^^®  of  his  participa- 
tion in  the  jury-fixing  transaction.  In  his  confession 
he  involved  Attorneys  Murphy  and  Newburgh.  Later, 
in  open  court,  he  made  public  statement  of  his  partici- 
pation.^^^ 

Blake  in  his  statement  in  court  set  forth  that  he  had 
become    acquainted     with     Newburgh    through    having 

398  "Confessing  his  crimes,"  said  Tlie  Call  in  its  issue  of  October 
30,  1908,  "Blake,  the  jury  briber,  lays  bare  the  ulcer  that  eats  away 
the  vitals  of  popular  government.  He  explains  why  the  San  Fran- 
cisco Graft  Prosecution  has  not  yet  put  anybody  in  the  penitentiary. 
He  makes  it  clear  why  Ruef  is  not  in  stripes.  He  shows  why  it 
is  next  to  impossible  to  convict  a  rich  man.  He  answers  the  famil- 
iar question,  'What's  the  matter  with  San  Francisco?' 

"On  his  way  to  prison  Blake  pauses  for  a  moment  and  gives  the 
people  of  San  Francisco  the  most  convincing  argument  in  favor  of 
the  Graft  Prosecution  that  they  have  had  since  the  boodled  Super- 
visors told  tlieir  story  of  shame,  and  Ruef,  in  tears,  delivered  his 
confession,  since  recanted.  Blake's  revelation  is  of  Inestimable 
value  to  the  cause  of  decency.  Opportunely  he  tears  away  curtain 
and  scenery  and  lets  the  people  see  what  goes  on  behind  the  showy 
pretense  of  the  graft  defense.  In  the  nick  of  time  he  exposes 
some  of  the  actors  in  that  satirical  comedy  which  might  very  well 
be  called  'To  Hell  with  the  Law — Money  is  Above  It.'  " 

399  Members  of  the  faculty  of  Stanford  University  sent  the  fol- 
lowing communication  to  Rudolph  Spreckels,  William  H.  Langdon, 
Francis  J.   Heney,  William  J.   Burns  and  their  associates: 

"We,  tlie  undersigned  citizens  of  the  State  of  California,  realiz- 
ing the  far  reaching  significance  of  the  sworn  confession,  as  a  jury 
briber,  of  E.  A.  S.  Blake,  extend  to  you  our  earnest  and  sincere 
congratulations  on  having  successfully  demonstrated  the  nature  of 
some  of  the  obstacles  blocking  the  way  of  the  conviction  of  powerful 
criminals   In   our  commonwealth. 

"Believing  that  no  stability  of  social  relations,  including  normal 
business  conditions,  can  be  established  on  a  less  firm  basis  than 
incorruptible  courts  and  honest  juries,  leading  to  the  prompt  and 
sure  administration  of  justice,  we  wish  to  assure  you  of  our  con- 
tinued confidence  and  moral  support  in  the  great  work  upon  which 
you  are   engaged." 

The  letter  was  signed  by  President  David  Starr  Jordan  and 
practically  all   the  members  of  the  faculty. 


366  Jury-Fixing  Uncovered 

ofifices  in  the  same  building  with  him.  He  had,  he  said, 
met  Murphy  in  Newburgh's  office.  Newburgh  had  in- 
troduced them.  Murphy,  he  stated,  had  shown  him  a 
list  of  prospective  jurors,  and  had  asked  him  if  he  knew 
any  of  them.  He  had  told  the  lawyers  that  he  knew 
John  Martin  Kelly.  They  had,  Blake  stated,  got  him 
to  make  an  offer  to  Kelly,  which  he  did.  He  had  offered 
Kelly  $500  and  finally  $1000.  Kelly  (acting  under  in- 
structions from  District  Attorney  Langdon  and  Burns) 
had  finally  agreed  to  take  $1000.  Blake  testified  that 
he  had  reported  back  to  Murphy  that  Kelly  would  ac- 
cept the  money. 

Following  his  arrest,  Blake  testified,  his  lawyers  had 
come  to  him  without  his  solicitation,*""  with  the  state- 
ment in  explanation  that  they  had  come  from  a  mutual 
friend.  Blake  stated  that  he  had  heard  afterward  that 
the  "mutual  friend"  was  Murphy  and  Newburgh.  His 
bonds  had  been  furnished  without  his  stir,  through  his 
attorneys.  Murphy  and  Newburgh,  he  claimed,  had  as- 
sured him  they  would  do  everything  they  could  for  him ; 
that  he  need  not  worry ;  that  they  would  provide  for 
him  and  provide  for  his  wife  in  case  he  were  con- 
victed."'"^ 

Continuing,  Blake  stated  that  after  his  conviction  he 
had  had  a  talk  with  Murphy.  The  general  nature  of 
the  interview  was  that  he  had  good  ground  for  a  new 
trial.     "They  said,"  Blake  testified,  "  'when  we  get  up 

400  Similar  testimony  was  given  at  Murphy's  trial. 

401  It  developed  later  that  the  Blakes  had  been  living  together 
under  a,  con  tract  marriage.  Later  they  went  through  the  marriage 
ceremony.  This  phase  of  the  case  was  made  much  of  by  the 
defense.  Mrs.  Blake,  however,  stood  devotedly  by  her  husband 
through  all  the  trying  events  that  followed  his  arrest  and  impris- 
onment. 


Jury-Fixing  Uncovered  367 

to  the  higher  court,  it  will  be  thrown  out,'  or  something 
of  that  kind." 

According  to  Blake's  statement,  a  fund  of  $10,000 
was  promised  him  and  an  agreement  was  made  that  his 
wife  should  be  paid  $100  a  month  during  his  imprison- 
ment. Murphy,  he  said,  showed  him  what  purported  to 
be  promissory  notes  *^-  aggregating  $7500.  The  notes, 
he    alleged,    were    made   to    Murphy    and    signed    with 

4iii;  Of  these  promissory  notes  Blake,  in  his  statement  to  the 
court  as  published  at   the  time,    testified   as   follows:    • 

"Q.  How  much  money  were  you  to  get?  A.  I  was  to  get 
$10,000. 

"Q.  For  what?  What  were  j'ou  to  get  that  $10,000  for?  A. 
Well,  I  was  to  say  nothing  about  this  matter,  and  that  my  wife 
would — 

"Q.  In  other  words — .  A.  She  was  to  be  provided  for.  She 
was  to  get  $100  a  month.  The  Court.  How?  A.  To  be  taken  care 
of  when  I  was  convicted,  you  know. 

"Q.  During  your  incarceration?  A.  Yes,  and  I  was  to  have  the 
$10,000. 

Mr.  Langdon:  "Q.  Who  told  you  he  would  give  you  $10,000?  A. 
Mr.   Murphy. 

"Q.  What  did  he  say?  Just  tell  us  what  he  said  about  that. 
A.  The  money  was  to  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  third  party,  who 
I  would  select,  provided  the  one  I  selected  would  be  satisfactory  to 
them  and  they  felt  they  could  always  have  confidence  in,  or  some- 
thing of  that  kind.  That  $10,000  was  to  be  turned  over  to  me  im- 
mediately upon  my  sentence — just  as  soon  as  my  sentence  was 
passed  the  money  was  to  be  turned  over. 

"Q.  As  soon  as  the  court  sentenced  you  you  would  receive  the 
$10,000  that  Murphy  put  into  the  hands  of  this  third  person?  A. 
Yes. 

"Q.  Did  he  tell  you  what  kind  of  money  it  was,  or  what  repre- 
sentative value  it  was.  Did  he  show  you  any  of  that?  Did  Murphy 
show  you  anything?  A.  Yes,  he  showed  me  $7,500,  but  he  did  not 
show  me  the  $10,000  that  was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  party  that 
I  selected.     He  told  me  that  he  had  it. 

"Q.  What  was  this  $7,500  that  Murphy  showed  you?  In  what 
form  or  shape?    A.     In  notes. 

"Q.     Promissory  notes?    A.     Yes. 

"Q.     Signed  by  who?     A.     Signed  by  Mr.  Ruef. 

"Q.     Abraham  Ruef?     A.     Yes. 

"Q.  Who  else  signed  them,  if  any  one?  A.  They  were  indorsed 
by  his  father  and  sister. 

"Q.     His  father? 

"The  Court — promissory  notes  to  you  from  Abraham  Ruef,  and 
indorsed?  A.  The  promissory  notes,  your  honor,  were  made  out  to 
Mr.  Murphy,  and  he  was  to  turn  these  over  to  the  third  party, 
Indorsed,  I  presume,  to  the  third  party,  who  I  might  select.  The 
notes  read,  "One  year  after  date  I  promise  to  pay  to  Frank  J.  Mur- 
phy,' that  is  the  way  the  notes  read. 

"Q.  And  signed?  A.  And  signed  by  Mr.  Ruef,  and  then  they 
were  countersigned  or  indorsed  by  his  father  and  sister." 


368  Jury-Fixing  Uncovered 

Ruef s  name  with  the  endorsement  of  Ruef's  sister  and 
father.  Blake  was  requested  to  select  a  representative 
to  hold  the  notes.  It  was  alleged  that  Blake  named 
Martin   Stevens,  an  attorney,  as  such  representative.*"^ 

After  Blake's  confession  came  the  trials  of  Murphy 
and  Newburgh.  They  did  not  differ  to  any  great  extent 
from  the  principal  graft  trials.  There  were  the  delaying 
tactics  that  had  been  characteristic  of  the  graft  cases ; 
failure  of  jurors  to  agree;  acquittals. 

Murphy's  trial  came  first.  There  was  against  him 
the  testimony  of  Blake  and  Kelly,  corroborated  at  many 
points  by  other  witnesses.  Murphy  made  denial.  In 
his  defense,  too,  many  witnesses  took  the  stand  to  testify 
to  his  good  character.*"*     Murphy  was  acquitted. 

Newburgh's  trial  followed.  The  first  jury  failed  to 
agree.     It  was  stated  at  the  time  that  the  jury  stood  six 

403  Stevens  denied  this.  Stevens  was  called  before  the  Grand 
Jury  and  questioned.  He  declined  to  answer  on  the  ground  that 
the  relations  of  attorney  toward  client  cannot  be  violated.  Blake 
exonerated  Stevens  from  this  obligation.  But  Stevens  held  that  he 
acted  for  Murphy  as  well  as  Blake.  The  court  held,  however,  that 
the  communications  were  not  privileged.  Stevens  in  his  testimony 
which  followed,  denied  everything  that  tended  to  implicate  himself 
and  Murphy  in  any  way  with  the  attempted  jury  fixing,  or  with 
the  alleged   $10,000  fund. 

404  Among  those  who  testified  to  Murphy's  good  character  was 
Rev.  H.  H.  "W^yman,  at  that  time  the  head  of  the  Paulist  Order  at 
San  Francisco.  Another  Paulist  priest,  Rev.  Stark,  showed  great 
interest  in  Murphy's  welfare. 

After  Murphy's  acquittal  a  story  was  current  in  San  Francisco 
to  the  effect  that  at  a  dinner  given  soon  after  Murphy's  acquittal, 
Murphy  had  promised  a  present  to  the  Paulist  Church,  St.  Mary's, 
and  that  Father  Staik  had  announced  that  a  plate  bearing  Mur- 
phy's name  and  the  date  of  his  acquittal  should  be  placed  upon  the 
gift. 

However  unjustified  the  story  may  have  been.  Murphy  did  give 
St.  Mary's  a  present — a  pulpit.  On  the  pulpit  was  put  a  plate 
bearing  Murphy's  name  and  a  date.  The  incident  so  incensed 
priests  of  the  Paulist  order  who  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the 
course  of  Fathers  Wyman  and  Stai-k  at  Murphy's  trial,  that  they 
entered  the  church  with  a  screw-driver,  removed  the  plate,  and 
threw  it  into  San  Francisco  bay.  Later  a  second  plate  was  put 
upon  the  pulpit.  So  far  as  the  writer  knows,  the  second  plate  is 
still   in  its  place. 


Jury-Fixing  Uncovered  369 

for  conviction  and  six  for  acquittal.     At  his  second  trial, 
Newburgh   was  acquitted. 

But  Blake  was  in  jail  under  a  four  years'  sentence 
to  the  penitentiary.  Astonishing  as  the  revelations  in 
the  Blake  jury-fixing  case  had  been,  they  were  to  be 
overshadowed  by  the  events  of  Ruef's  trial.  Even  as 
the  city  stood  aghast  at  the  evidence  of  jury  tampering, 
Assistant  District  Attorney  Heney  was,  during  the  prog- 
ress of  the  trial,  shot  down  in  open  court. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 
The  Shooting  of  Heney. 

In  spite  of  the  sensational  events  following  the  trap- 
ping of  Blake,  the  work  of  impaneling  a  jury  to  try 
Ruef  went  steadily  on.  After  months  of  effort/"^  a 
jury  was  finally  sworn  to  try  the  case. 

Again  the  telling  of  the  sordid  story  of  the  city's 
betrayal  commenced. 

Gallagher,  the  pivotal  witness,  had  begun  his  sorry 
recital.  In  the  midst  of  it  occurred  what  those  who  had 
followed  the  methods  of  the  graft  defense  had  long 
predicted. 

Assistant  District  Attorney  Heney  was  shot  down.**^"' 
^The  shooting  occurred  in  open  court  during  a  brief 
recess. 

Heney  was  seated  at  his  place  at  the  attorneys'  table 

405  Seventy-two  days  were  required  to  impanel  the  jury  before 
which  Ruef  was  tried,  fifty  days  being  devoted  to  actual  court  work. 
There  were  summoned  1,450  talesmen,  of  whom  446  were  examined. 
Six  jurors  were  denied  their  freedom  for  forty-two  days  before  the 
jury  was  completed.  Blake,  arrested  for  jury-fixing,  was  trapped, 
tried  and  convicted  before  the  jury  was  completed.  Two  of  Ruef's 
attorneys  were,  during  the  impaneling  of  the  jury,  indicted  for 
alleged  connection  with  Blake's  attempt  to  influence  the  jury  in 
Ruef's  favor. 

406  There  is,  so  far  as  the  writer  can  find,  no  evidence  that  the 
Graft  Defense  or  its  agents  employed  Haas  to  kill  Heney  any  more 
than  there  is  evidence  that  the  Graft  Defense  or  its  agents  em- 
ployed Pauduveris  to  murder  the  pivotal  witness,  Gallagher.  But 
that  Haas  was  urged  to  kill  Heney  because  of  the  exposure  of 
Haas's  previous  record  at  the  first  Ruef  trial  is  well  established. 

"I  was  urged  frequently,"  said  Haas  in  a  confession  made  to 
Langdon  and  Burns,  "to  kill  Heney  by  certain  persons  whose  names 
I  will  not  tell  you,  and  I  also  talked  to  other  people  about  killing 
Heney  and  was  advised  by  them  not  to  do  it.  In  addition  to  that, 
certain   persons   approached   me   several   times   and    referred   to   the 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  371 

talking-  with  an  assistant.  The  jury  had  left  the  court- 
room. Gallagher  had  for  the  moment  left  the  witness 
box  and  was  standing  a  few  feet  from  Heney  waiting 
opportunity  to  speak  with  him.  A  few  feet  further  away 
was  Heney's  body  guard.  In  the  room  were  something 
more  than  200  citizens  waiting  for  the  trial  to  be  re- 
sumed. There  was  the  usual  confusion  which  attends 
a  five-minute  court  recess.  Court  attaches,  officials,  at- 
torneys, citizens  were  passing  to  and  fro  without  hin- 
drance. 

The  man  who  shot  Heney  had  no  difficulty  in  gain- 
ing access  to  the  courtroom.  He  walked  deliberately  to 
the   attorneys"   table,   and   before   he   was   even   noticed, 

time  I  was  thrown  off  the  Ruef  jury,  saying:  'I'd  never  stand  that 
sort  of  a  roast,'  and  'I'd  Ivill  a  man  who  did  that  to  me,'  and  sim- 
ilar things." 

Who  urged  Haas  to  do  this  thing,  and  what  was  their  motive? 
Haas  alone  could  have  answered  the  first  question.  But  the  bullet 
that  ended  his  life  sealed  his  lips  forever. 

Of  Haas's  purpose  in  getting  on  the  first  Ruef  jury  we  have 
some  testimony.  Joseph  Brachman,  a  close  associate  of  Ruef,  who 
had  known  Haas  for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century,  said  in  an  inter- 
view publislied   in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  November  15,   190S: 

"When  Ruef  was  on  trial  in  the  Parkside  case,  on  the  bribery 
charge,  I  heard  that  Haas  had  been  called  on  the  jury  panel.  At 
that  time  I  was  frequently  in  consultation  with  Ruef.  every  day,  in 
fact.  But  I  was  afraid  to  go  to  Ruef  v/ith  what  I  knew  of  Haas, 
so  I  went  to  one  of  his  lawyers — I  won't  saj-  which  one — and  told 
him  of  the  record  of  Haas.  I  told  him  that  Haas  was  a  bad  man 
and  an   ex-convict.     I   said   that  Ruef  should   challenge  him. 

"I  was  in  court  the  day  that  Haas  qualified  and  passed  into 
the  jury.  Again  I  told  his  attorney  that  Haas  was  a  bad  man,  to 
get  rid  of  him.  but  nothing  was  done.  When  Heney  produced  the 
evidence  showing  that  Haas  was  an  ex-convict  I  was  in  court,  also. 
I  met  Haas  after  he  had  been  disqualified.  Haas  told  me  the  rea- 
son wliy  he  stayed  on  the  jury  and  why  his  record  was  not  made 
public  by  the  defense  of  Ruef.  He  told  me  that  he  expected  ?4,000 
from  Ruef  for  his  services  on  the  Parkside  case  jury.  He  said 
that  he  was  hard  up,  that  he  was  in  debt,  that  he  owed  money  on 
his  saloon  and  that  if  he  had  been  permitted  to  stay  on  the  jury 
he  would  have  been  able,  with  the  $4,000  to  be  paid  him  by  Ruef, 
to  clear  himself  of  debt. 

"He  also  told  me,  Haas  did,  on  the  day  that  he  was  disquali- 
fied, that  he  was  going  to  'kill  one  of  the  prosecutors.'  He  did  not 
say  which  one,  but  he  frequently  repeated  to  me,  that  he  was 
'going  to  get  one  of  the  pi-osecutors.'  I  met  him  many  times  and 
often,  frequently  he  told  me  that  he  was  'going  to  get  one  of  the 
prosecutors.'  " 


372  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

had  fired  deliberately  at  the  Assistant  Prosecutor.  The 
gun  was  held  not  more  than  six  inches  from  Heney 's 
head.  In  an  instant,  Heney's  bodyguard  was  upon  the 
assassin.  But  the  bodyguard's  efforts  came  late.  Heney, 
apparently  mortally  wounded,  was  lying  unconscious  on 
the  floor,  the  blood  gushing  from  a  ragged  hole  in  front 
of  the  right  ear,  just  under  the  temple. *°^ 

Heney's  assailant  was  found  to  be  one  Morris  Haas, 
an  ex-convict,  who  had  succeeded  in  securing  a  place 
on  the  jury  at  the  former  Ruef  trial.  Heney  had  ex- 
posed him.*°^  When  it  was  demanded  of  him  why  he 
had  attempted  to  kill  Heney,  he  murmured  incoherently, 
that  it  was  "for  humanity's  sake."  Although  closely 
questioned  Haas  would  tell  little  of  value  to  those  who 
were  seeking  to  get  at  the  real  motive  behind  the  as- 
sault. He  was  thoroughly  searched  both  by  Detective 
Burns  and  Captain  of  Police  Thomas  Duke,  and  then 
taken  to  the  county  jail  where  he  was  closely  guarded. 

A  short  time  before  the  shooting  of  Heney,  Judge 
Lawlor  had  had  attorneys  of  both  sides  before  him  to 
state  that  in  his  judgment,  he  should  remand  Ruef,  who 
was  out  of  jail  under  heavy  bonds,  to  the  custody  of 
the  Sheriff  for  the  remainder  of  the  trial.  Shortly 
after  this   conference  Heney   had  been   shot   down. 

When  the  court  had  re-convened,  and  the  jury  had 
been  dismissed  for  the  day.  Judge  Lawlor  carried  out 
his  intention  and  ordered  the  Sheriff  to  take  charge  of 
Ruef.     The  shooting  had  occurred  on  Friday  afternoon. 


407  Physicians  state  that  Heney's  escape  from  death  was  by  a 
hair's  breadth.  Had  the  bullet,  striking  as  it  did,  taken  any  other 
course  death   would  have  been  inevitable. 

408  See   Chapter  XXIII. 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  373 

November  13.  The  court  adjourned  until  the  following 
Monday/o^ 

Pleney  in  the  meantime  had  been  taken  to  a  hospital. 
There  it  was  found  that  the  wound  was  not  necessarily 
fatal.  The  rumors  current  that  Heney  had  been  killed 
were  denied.     This  tended  to  calm  the  excitement. 

Nevertheless,  San  Francisco  and  all  California  were 
aroused  as  never  before  in  the  State's  history.  In  a 
twinkling,  the  results  of  months  of  misrepresentation, 
ridicule  and  abuse  of  the  Prosecution  were  swept  away. 
Haas'  bullet  had  not  killed  Heney,*"  but  it  had  awakened 
the  community  to  tardy  realization  of  its  responsibil- 
ity.*"    Men  who  had  laughed  at  the  Examiner's  "Mutt 


409  "Will  they,"  demanded  The  Call  the  morning  after  Heney 
had  been  shot  down,  "stop  at  nothing?  Are  not  stealing,  perjury, 
bribery,  dynamiting,  murder,  enough?  Must  the  course  of  justice 
in  this  community  run  the  gamut  of  violence,  as  well  as  of  slander 
and  pettifogging  obstruction? 

"Apparently  it  must.  But  there  is  at  least  no  longer  any  rea- 
son to  doubt  where  the  responsibility  lies.  A  bare  chance,  the  mo- 
mentary tremor  of  an  assassin's  hand,  may  have  saved  the  life  of 
Francis  J.  Heney  to  this  community.  There  will  be  no  tremor  in 
the  finger  of  scorn  that  points  past  the  miserable  wretch  that  did 
the  shooting  to  the  men  that  inspired  it.  A  worthless  crank,  of 
course.  It  always  is.  Dirty  hands  for  dirty  work.  But  softer 
hands  and  keener  brains  plan  it.  And  the  community  will  waste 
no  wrath  on  the  miserable  tool,  now  cowering  in  jail.  It  was  not 
he  who  has  dogged  the  steps  of  Francis  J.  Heney  these  two  years 
with  hired  thugs.  It  was  not  he  who  has  filled  the  courtrooms 
with  professional  ruffians.  It  was  not  he  wh.o  dynamited  Galla- 
gher— or  hired  it  done.  Least  of  all  was  it  he  who  made  a  joke  of 
that  crime  and  sought  to  make  a  joke  and  a  byword  of  the  heroic 
Heney — 'poor  Beany.'  " 

410  While  Heney  lay  wounded  at  San  Francisco,  and  Haas  lay 
dead,  another  tragedy  growing  out  of  the  Graft  Prosecution  was 
being  enacted  on  the  other  side  of  the  globe.  John  Krause,  who 
had  been  T.  V.  Ilal.sey'.'?  assistant  at  the  time  of  the  Pacific  States 
"Telephone  briberies,  killed  himself  on  the  steamer  Adriatic  as  it 
plied  from  Cherbourg,  France,  to  Queenstown,  Ireland.  Krause 
had  disappeared  from  San  Francisco  in  December,  1907.  It  was 
never  charged  that  Krause  was  a  principal  to  the  bribery  transac- 
tions, or  that  he  had  even  guilty  knowledge  of  them.  His  only 
possible  connection  with  the  graft  cases  was  as  a  witness  against 
the  Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company  officials. 

411  "A  great  work."  said  Hiram  "U'.  Johnson,  in  an  interview 
printed  in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  November  14,  1008,  "undertaken 
and    accomplished,    though    not    yet    wholly    completed,    has    been 


374  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

cartoons"  ridiculing  the  Prosecution,  now  threatened  to 
mob  The  Examiner  office.  Patrons  of  the  defense- 
supporting  Chronicle  now  voiced  their  utter  condemna- 
tion of  that  paper.  Thousands  withdrew  their  subscrip- 
tions from  the  two  publications.  The  time  was  ripe  for 
the  demagogue.  An  unpolitic  word  from  the  defense 
just  then,  an  incendiary  speech  from  some  unwise  par- 
tisan of  the  Prosecution,  would  have  been  sufficient  to 
have  sent  a  mob  marching  upon  the  jail  in  which  Haas 
and  Ruef  were  confined,  or  upon  the  residences  of  the 
indicted  bribe-givers,  or  against  the  newspaper  offices 
which  for  months  had  labored  to  make  the  Graft  Prose- 
cution unpopular. 

There  was  a  feeling  that  the  criminal  element  was 
too  powerfully  intrenched  to  be  reached  through  the 
ordinary  legal  channels.  The  feeling,  which  had  sub- 
sided  when   the   Graft    Prosecution   opened,*^-   that  the 

retarded  for  a  day  by  an  assassin's  bullet.  When  Frank  Heney 
fell  today  while  in  the  performance  of  his  duty,  decency  and  the 
right  were  stricken.  For  two  years  this  one  man  has  persevered 
in  the  right,  for  right's  sake  alone.  Without  compensation,  sacri- 
ficing a  great  legal  practice,  giving  without  complaint  the  best 
years  of  his  life,  Francis  J.  Heney,  facing  all  the  combined  forces 
of  evil  in  this  community  and  State,  has  stood  unflinchingly  at  his 
post,  making  the  flght  that  is  tiie  fight  of  all  of  us.  Daily  abuse 
and  vilification  have  been  his  portion  and  reward.  In  spite  of  it, 
where  a  weaker  man  would  have  faltered,  Heney  has  persevered. 
He  has  done  in  seeking  to  make  equality  before  the  law  an  assur- 
ance in  this  State,  all  that  a  strong  and  a  brave  man  could  do. 
Were  he  to  pass  away  tonight  he'd  need  no  other  monument  than 
the  work  he  has  done.  For  generations  his  expose  of  rottenness 
in  San  Francisco,  his  prosecutions  of  the  criminal  rich  will  live  and 
make  this  city  and  State  better.  He  iias  been  shot  simply  because 
he  was  fighting  for  the  right.  Not  alone  has  he  been  wounded; 
but  the  community  and  the  commonwealth  have  suffered  the  in- 
jury. 

"We  who  were  with  him  in  the  early  days  of  the  struggle,  and 
knew  his  every  mood;  who  saw  liim  a.t  his  work  day  and  night, 
and  loved  the  qualities  that  made  it  possible  for  him  to  accomplish 
what  he  has,  can  not  express  our  horror  and  indignation  and 
anger  at  his  attempted  assassination.  May  God  speed  his  recov- 
ei-y." 

412  See  Chapter  IV. 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  375 

graft  evil  could  not  be  corrected  except  by  extra-legal 
means,  was  to  some  degree  revived. 

In  this  emergency,  the  leaders  of  the  Graft  Prosecu- 
tion, by  counseling  moderation  and  observance  of  the 
law,  did  yeoman  service  in  the  keeping  of  good  order  in 
San   Francisco. 

The  Citizens'  League  of  Justice  *^^  called  a  mass 
meeting  for  the  Saturday  evening  following  the  shoot- 
ing. Even  in  the  call,  the  League  urged  there  be  no 
breach  of  the  peace. 

"Francis  J.  Heney,"  the  League's  call  read,  "has 
fallen  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin,  shot  from  behind 
vvhile  fighting  at  his  post  in  the  cause  of  justice  for  the 
people  of  this  city.  He  would  be  the  first  man  to  appeal 
to  the  calm  reason  of  the  citizens  to  preserve  order  and 
proceed  only  by  the  processes  of  lav/ ;  to  look  not  for 
vengeance,  but  to  demand  swift  justice  through  the 
courts.     We  make  the  same  appeal." 

Mayor  Taylor  presided  at  the  meeting.  Long  before 
the  hour  set  for  tlie  opening,  the  auditorium  was  packed 
to  the  doors,  with  thousands  on  the  outside   clnmorinir 


413  The  Citizens'  League  of  Justice  was  organized  immediately 
after  the  attempted  assassination  of  Witness  Gallagher  by  means 
of  dynamite.  Those  immediately  connected  with  the  prosecution, 
it  had  been  amply  demonstrated,  were  risking  their  lives.  In  the 
Citizens'  League  of  Justice  was  proposed  an  organization,  entirely 
separate  and  apart  from  the  graft  prosecution,  to  back  the  prosecu- 
tion. The  idea  originated  with  Bruce  Poiter.  the  artist.  Rev. 
Charles  N.  Lathrop,  of  the  Church  of  the  Advent,  became  inter- 
ested. The  initial  meeting  was  held  at  Father  Lathrop's  house. 
While  the  League  had  no  connection  with  the  prosecution,  it  be- 
came inost  effective  in  support  of  the  prosecution  group.  Professor 
George  H.  Boke,  of  the  T^niversity  of  California  Law  School,  ac- 
cepted the  hazardous  position  of  the  League's  executive  officer.  In 
spite  of  the  fact  that  he  was  jeopardizing  his  position  at  the  State 
University  by  his  course,  Professor  Boke  did  much  effective  work 
in  bringing  the  conditions  which  confronted  San  Francisco  squarely 
before  the  public.  Matt  I.  Sullivan,  who  afterwards  became  Chief 
Justice  of  the  State  Supreme  Court,  served  as  the  League's  pres- 
ident. 


376  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

for  entrance.  Those  in  charge  of  the  meeting  were 
compelled  to  call  it  to  order  several  minutes  before  they 
had  intended. 

Professor  George  H.  Boke  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia Law  School,  and  manager  of  the  Citizens'  League 
of  Justice,  was  to  introduce  Mayor  Taylor.  Several 
minutes  before  the  time  set  for  the  meeting,  the  crowd 
started  a  cheer  for  Heney.  The  demonstration  lasted  for 
fully  five  minutes.  Then  some  one  started  the  cry, 
"Throw  the  Examiner  out."  Hundreds  half  rose  from 
their  ^eats,  their  eyes  bent  upon  the  press  table  where 
representatives  of  The  Examiner  were  seated. 

Professor  Boke  at  once  grasped  the  significance  of  the 
movement,  and  acted  on  the  instant.  Stepping  to  the 
fore,  he  made  a  brief  address  introducing  Mayor  Taylor, 
thereby  checking  the  threatened  demonstration. 

Mayor  Taylor  was  quick  to  sound  the  keynote  of  the 
meeting.  "Let  us,"  he  said  in  introducing  the  first 
speaker,  "see  to  it  that  no  matter  who  else  breaks  the 
law,  that  we  shall  not  break  it."  "* 

414  Dr.  Taylor's  observations  on  this  point  were  as  follows:  "Let 
us  see  to  it  that  no  matter  who  else  breaks  the  law,  that  we  shall 
not  break  it.  In  this  crisis,  we  must,  above  all  things,  keep  our 
heads.  We  must,  above  all  things,  while  resolute  and  determined, 
be  self-restrained. 

"San  Francisco  has  had  many  afflictions.  She  now  has  this  addi- 
tional affliction  of  the  assassination  of  one  who  stood  for  the  peo- 
ple's rights;  of  one  who  was  fearlessly  engaged  in  the  important 
and  priceless  business  of  civic  regeneration,  and  who,  while  in  the 
act  of  performing  the  greatest  of  all  duties  as  a  citizen,  was  laid 
low  by  the  bullets  of  an  assassin. 

"But  let  us  not  add  to  the  affliction  the  affliction  of  breaking 
the  peace.  Let  us,  above  all  things,  as  I  have  said,  keep  ourselves 
restrained.  Let  us  not  add  to  the  afflictions  that  are  upon  us  the 
affliction  of  mob  law.  Let  us  go  about  our  business,  whatever  we 
may  do  in  this  matter,  in  a  peaceful  way,  but  in  a  resolute  way, 
in  a  determined  v/ay.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  officers  of  the  law 
will  do  their  duty.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  judges  will  do  their 
duty,  and  that  our  juries  will  do  their  duty.  And  if  they,  each 
one  of  them,  perform  faithfully  the  functions  upon  his  part,  we 
have  nothing  to  fear,  and  we  shall  see  that  those  who  are  guilty 
are  punished   and  are   rightfully   punished." 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  377 

Every  speaker  who  followed  the  Mayor  emphasized 
this.  "Let  us,"  said  the  Rev.  William  Rader,  "have 
heads  which  are  cool  and  minds  which  are  rational." 

"We  stand  in  this  fight,"  said  District  Attorney  Lang- 
don,  "for  law  and  order.  And  I  want  to  say  to  you 
and  ask  you  to  pass  it  on  to  your  neighbors,  that,  as 
crimes  have  been  committed,  those  crimes  must  be  pun- 
ished, but  punished  within  the  law.  And  I  want  to  say 
further,  that  as  the  law  officers  of  this  city  and  county, 
we  shall  consider  any  man  who  expresses  an  opinion  or 
sentiment  that  we  ought  to  resort  to  measures  extra- 
judicial, as  an  enemy  of  good  government." 

"Why,"  demanded  James  D.  Phelan,  "should  we  take 
violent  steps?  Is  not  San  Francisco  a  great,  civilized 
community?  Are  not  our  American  institutions  still 
intact?  They  are.  And  although  in  the  early  days  of 
San  Francisco  the  Vigilance  Committee,  an  extra-legal 
tribunal,  was  resorted  to  for  the  purpose  of  correcting 
such  abuses,  we  must  remember  that  at  that  time  we 
were  a  border  State,  at  that  time  we  were  a  mining 
camp.  Only  such  a  strenuous  method  would  then  have 
succeeded,  because  judges  who  were  on  the  bench  were 
elected  by  ballot-box  stuffers,  a  council  was  elected  in 
the  same  way.  Crime  was  rampant,  nobody  was  pun- 
ished. Then  the  men  of  San  Francisco  organized  a 
tribunal  and  gave  an  orderly  trial  to  every  offender 
whom  they  apprehended,  and  as  a  result  this  city  was 
cleansed  of  crime  and  remained  a  model  community  for 
twenty  years. 

"But  conditions  now  are  different.  It  is  true  that 
within  the  last  year  there  has  been  a  feeling  in  this 
community  that  the  criminal  law  had  broken  down,  and 


37^  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

that  we  could  not,  under  the  law,  punish  the  offenders ; 
and  that  the  courts,  the  highest  courts,  abetted  and  aided 
criminals  by  the  rankest  interpretations,  technical  inter- 
pretations of  the  statutes.  They  refused  to  lean  on  the 
side  of  order  and  justice,  and  they  have  brought  dis- 
grace upon  the  judiciary  of  California,  all  over  the 
world. 

"But  our  civilization  and  our  institutions  are  safe. 
That  vote  the  other  day,  and  the  election  of  Judge 
Dunne,  the  election  two  years  ago  of  Judge  Coffey  and 
Judge  Lawlor,  give  us  courage  and  confidence  to  believe 
that,  under  the  constitution  and  the  laws,  we  can  win 
our  battle  if  you  only  give  us  time,  without  any  resort 
to  violence ;  and  we  are  willing,  though  one  hundred  days 
have  passed,  to  pursue  that  work,  because  that  is  the 
only  way  we  can  do  it  under  the  constitution  and  the 
laws." 

When  Rudolph  Spreckels  entered  the  building  he  was 
greeted  with  demonstration.  He,  too,  while  expressing 
great  sympathy  for  his  friend  who  had  been  stricken 
down,  joined  in  counseling  that  nothing  be  done  outside 
the  law. 

With  the  urging  that  no  exhibition  of  mob-violence 
be  added  to  the  burden  of  the  afflicted  community,  was 
given  assurance  that  the  Graft  Prosecution  should  go 
on;  that  the  laws  should  be  upheld;  that  those  responsi- 
ble for  the  conditions  which  had  been  forced  upon  San 
Francisco  should  be  brought 'to  justice.  Whatever  dan- 
ger there  was  of  violence  to  members  of  the  graft  de- 
fense, vanished  at  that  Citizens'  League  of  Justice  mass 
meeting.      At    its    conclusion,    resolutions    were    adopted 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  379 

condemning  the  methods  of  the  defense,  declaring  un- 
wavering allegiance  of  those  present  to  law,  and  pledg- 
ing support  in  the  cleansing  of  the  city  of  grafters  and 
boodlers.*^^ 


415  The    following-    resolutions    were    adopted    at    the    meeting: 

"Whereas,  following  unparalleled  disaster  from  the  elements  our 
unfortunate  city  fell  upon  times  of  unprecedented  civic  corruption, 
necessitating  the  tearing  down  of  the  wreckage  of  government, 
and  the  rebuilding  of  our  civic  structure  on  foundations  of  law 
and   justice;    and 

"Whereas,  the  first  labor  necessary  was  the  prosecution  of 
criminals,  bribe  givers,  bribe  takers  and  brokers  in  corruption;  and 

"Whereas,  the  prosecution,  beset  with  many  difficulties,  ob- 
tained its  evidence  in  the  only  way  that  such  evidence  could  be 
obtained;    and 

"Whereas,  in  the  subsequent  attempt  to  convict  the  guilty 
there  was  developed  a  vast  conspiracy  to  thwart  the  ends  of  jus- 
tice, which  conspiracy  has  involved  social  boycott  and  unjust  and 
coercive  business  pressure,  has  openly  employed  thugs  to  terrorize 
the  officers  of  the  law,  has  employed  lawyers  to  browbeat  and 
insult  witnesses,  prosecutors  and  the  judges  on  the  bench,  and  to 
waste  the  time  and  money  and  to  exhaust  the  patience  of  the 
people  by  useless  and  technical  delays,  and  which  conspiracy  has 
moreover  involved  so  large  a  part  of  our  public  press  that  many 
of  our  people  have  been  deprived  of  the  truth  and  have  been  fed 
upon  poisoned  lies;   and 

"Whereas,  up  to  the  present  time  the  law  as  administered  has 
proved  inadequate  to  secure  that  prompt  and  certain  application 
of  justice,   which  must  be  the  basis  of  social  order;  and 

"Whereas,  out  of  this  conspiracy  grew  plots  to  kidnap,  and 
actual  kidnaping;  plots  to  bribe  juries,  and  actual  jury  bribing; 
plots  to  assassinate  witnesses  and  an  attempt  to  assassinate  a 
witness  by  dynamite;  and  out  of  it  also  grew  plots  to  assassinate 
the  prosecutors,  and  the  attempted  assassination  of  the  bravest 
friend  that  San  Francisco  has  known,   Francis  J.   Heney; 

"Therefore  be  it  resolved,  that  here  and  now  we  declare  our 
unwavering  allegiance  to  law,  and  that  if  the  criminal  law  be 
found  to  be  so  framed  as  to  permit  the  escape  of  civic  malefactors 
we  shall  see  to  it  that  the  law  be  amended;  that  if  the  lax  admin- 
istiation  of  the  criminal  law  be  due  to  misinterpretation  by  judges, 
we  shall  see  to  it  that  men  be  placed  upon  the  bench  capable  of 
construing   the  law. 

"Be  it  further  resolved,  that  we  call  upon  the  Supervisors  to 
provide  adequate  funds  for  the  District  Attorney's  office  to  secure 
the  detection,  prosecution  and  conviction  of  criminals,  high  or  low, 
and  the  full  protection  of  officers  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties; 

"Be  it  further  resolved,  that  we  demand  the  truth  from  our 
public  press,  and  shall  see  to  it  that  our  people  are  informed  of 
the  facts  that  they  may  judge  of  those  who  by  lying  and  misrepre- 
sentation are  perverting  public  opinion. 

"Be  it  further  resolved,  that  we  solemnly  assert  our  utmost  con- 
fidence in  the  law-abiding  character  of  our  people;  that  we  here 
declare  our  gratitude  for  the  inestimable  service  rendered  us  by 
the  office  of  the  District  Attorney  in  the  restoration  of  reputable 
and  responsible  government;  and  that  we  stand  firm  in  our  deter- 
mination to  indorse  and  to  aid  that  office  to  the  end  that  all  per- 
sons accused  of  crime  shall  be  fairly  tried  and  their  guilt  or  inno- 


380  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

Another  crisis  had  passed  in  San  Francisco.  The 
situation  was  not  unlike  that  of  two  years  before,  when 
the  clamor  that  drastic  means  be  taken  to  free  the  city 
of  Ruef's  domination,  was  silenced  by  announcement 
that  Rudolph  Spreckels  had  guaranteed  a  fund  for  the 
investigation  of  municipal  conditions,  and  to  prosecute 
those  found  to  be  guilty  of  corruption.*^^ 

But  even  as  the  citizens  met  in  mass  meeting  another 
tragedy  of  the  Graft  Prosecution  was  enacted.  Haas, 
under  the  eyes  of  policemen  specially  detailed  to  watch 
him,  killed  himself  or  was  killed.  With  him  died  all 
hope  of  discovering  who  had  urged  him  to  avenge  him- 
self upon  Heney. 

Haas'  suicide,  if  it  were  suicide ;  or  his  murder,  if  it 
were  murder ;  is  one  of  the  mysteries  of  the  graft  cases. 
He  was  shot  with  a  derringer.  The  weapon  was  an 
inch  through  at  the  butt  and  5-8  wide  at  the  muzzle — 
certainly  an  easily  discovered  weapon  by  officers  prac- 
ticed in  searching  men.  And  yet,  Haas  had,  before  he 
was  put  in  his  cell,  been  thoroughly  searched  both  by 
Captain    Duke  *^'^    of    the    police    force    and    Detective 

cence  be  finally  established  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
law. 

"To  these  ends  we  pledge  ourselves,  that  our  beloved  city  may 
be  purged  of  boodlers  and  grafters  and  be  a  better  home  for  our- 
selves and  our  children. 

"Be  it  further  resolved,  that  we  send  word  to  our  wounded 
champion,  that  his  labors  for  us  are  appreciated  and  that  his  suf- 
ferings for  our  sake  are  not  in  vain." 

416  See  Chapter  IV. 

417  Captain  Duke,  at  an  investigation  which  followed,  testified: 
"At  Mr.  Burns's  suggestion,  we  took  Haas  into  the  room  off  the 
courtroom  occupied  by  the  stenographers.  First  we  made  a  slight 
search,  and  then  I  said  to  Mr.  Burns:  'Are  you  sure  we  searched 
him  thoroughly?'  and  we  went  over  him  again.  I  felt  down  to  his 
shoes.  I  always  search  a  man  that  way,  for  when  I  first  went  on 
the  police  force  I  had  an  experience  with  a  Chinaman,  whom  Po- 
liceman Helms,  who  was  recently  killed,  and  myself  had  arrested. 
We    found   a   dagger   in    his    shoe,    and   since    then    I   have    always 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  381 

Burns.  The  two  ofificers  are  certain  that  Haas  had  no 
weapon  upon  him.  And  yet,  one  theory  advanced  by 
his  keepers  is  that  Haas  had  the  derringer  all  the  time 
concealed  in  his  shoe.  Another  theory  is  that  the  der- 
ringer was  smuggled  in  to  him.  Rut,  with  Haas  under 
watchful  eyes  of  special  guards,  by  whom?  Another 
theory,  popular  at  the  time,  was  that  Haas  had  been 
murdered  in  his  cell.  But  if  murdered — or  even  if  the 
derringer  were  smuggled  in  to  him — what  was  the 
motive  behind  it  ?  These  are  questions  which,  short  of 
some  death-bed  confession,  perhaps,  are  not  likely  to  be 
answered. 

Those  who  hurried  to  his  cell  at  the  report  of  the 
derringer  found  Haas  dead.  Whether  he  had  shot 
himself  or  whether  he  had  been  shot,  his  lips  were 
sealed  forever. 

On  the  Sunday  following  the  shooting  of  Heney, 
most  of  the  Protestant  pastors  of  San  Francisco  made 
the  attempted  assassination  the  subject  of  their  sermons. 
The  same  course  was  taken  throughout  the  State  gen- 
erally. In  the  afternoon  mass  meetings  were  held  in 
all  parts  of  the  State,  at  which  resolutions  were  adopted 


examined  a  man's  feet.  I  will  state  that  I  felt  the  man's  shoes 
the  other  day  after  they  had  been  put  on  the  corpse  and  the  der- 
ringer placed  in  them,  and  from  the  bulge  I  noticed  then  I  am 
sure  that  I  would  have  felt  the  weapon  had  it  been  in  his  shoe  at 
the  time  of  the  arrest.  JVe  were  looking  for  anything  that  we 
could  find.  From  something  the  man  said — that  he  didn't  care  if 
he  lived  or  not — I  thought  tliat  he  might  make  an  attempt  to  com- 
mit suicide. 

"It  would  have  been  an  utter  impossibility  for  the  derringer  to 
have  been  anywhere  else  than  in  the  man's  shoe,"  Duke  continued. 
"If  it  was  in  his  shoe  it  would  have  been  under  the  stocking  and 
the  man  would  have  had  it  there  29  hours  before  he  killed  himself. 
It  would  have  made  a  mark  on  the  flesh  or  interfered  with  his 
walking,  and  he  did  not  even  limp.  If  the  cartridges  had  been  in 
the  shoe  they  could  have  got  under  the  foot  and  the  man  could 
not  have  walked." 


382  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

condemning  the  methods  of  the  defense,  *^^  and  pledg- 
ing support  to  the  prosecution. 

Telegrams  *'^^  of  condolence  and  of  encouragement 
poured  in  from  all  parts  of  the  country. 

418  Neither  press  nor  defending  lawyers  were  spared  in  tlie 
criticism.  "We  iiave,"  said  Rev.  Bradford  Leavitt  of  tlie  First 
Unitarian  Ciiurcli  at  San  Francisco,  "dreamed  that  we  were  living 
under  the  government  of  laws,  whereas  we  were  living  under  the 
government  of  newspapers  hired  by  corrupt  corporations,  and  the 
enemies  of  civic  decency." 

"The  lawyers  who  are  paid  to  thwart  this  Graft  Prosecution," 
said  Charles  S.  Wheeler,  "have  proceeded  with  deliberate  plan  to 
destroy  the  effectiveness  of  the  prosecution  by  withdrawing  the 
support  of  the  people.  In  this  way  they  have  reached  the  home  of 
every  individual.  They  have  brought  cunningly  into  the  home 
their  hireling  periodicals,  and  a  press  misguided  or  worse,  has  been 
largely  instrurnental   in   aiding  their  desire." 

419  President  Roosevelt's  telegram  to  Mr.  Spreckels  was  as  fol- 
lows: 

"White  House,   Nov.    14,   1908. 
"To  Rudolph  Spreckels,   San  Francisco. 

"Am  inexpressibly  shocked  at  the  attempted  assassination  of 
Heney  and  most  earnestly  hope  he  will  recover.  The  infamous 
character  of  the  would-be  assassin  no  less  than  the  infamous  char- 
acter of  the  deed  call  attention  in  a  striking  way  to  the  true  char- 
acter of  the  forces  against  which  Heney  and  you  and  your  asso- 
ciates have  been  struggling.  Every  decent  American  who  has  the 
honor  and  interest  of  the  country  at  heart  should  join  not  only  in 
putting  a  stop  to  the  cause  of  violent  crime  of  which  this  man's 
act  is  but  one  of  the  symptoms,  but  also  in  stamping  out  the 
hideous  corruption  in  which  men  like  this  would-be  assassin  are 
bred  and  flourish,  and  that  can  only  be  done  by  warring  as  Heney 
has  warred  relentlessly  against  every  man  who  is  guilty  of  cor- 
rupt practices  without  any  regard  to  his  social  standing  and  his 
prominence  in  the  world  of  politics  or  the  world  of  business.  I 
earnestly  hope  that  Hene5'  v/ill  recover,  and  I  give  utterance  to 
what  I  know  would  be  Heney's  wish  when  I  say  that  I  earnestly 
hope  that  whether  he  recovers  or  not  there  be  no  faltering  in  the 
work  in  which  Heney  has  been  so  gallant  and  efflcient  a  leader. 
"9:10  A.   M. 

"THEODORE    ROOSEVELT." 

President  Roosevelt   telegraphed  Mrs.   Heney  as  follows: 

"White  House,  Nov.  14,   1908. 

"Mrs.  Francis  J.  Heney: — Am  inexpressibly  shocked  at  news  of 
the  attempted  assassination  of  Mr.  Heney  and  am  greatly  relieved 
at  the  news  this  morning  that  he  is  doing  well  and  will  probably 
recover.  I  hope  you  will  accept  my  deepest  sympathy.  Like  all 
good  American  citizens,  I  hold  your  husband  in  peculiar  regard  for 
the  absolutely  fearless  way  in  which  he  has  attacked  and  exposed 
corruption  without  any  regard  to  the  political  or  social  prominence 
of  the  offenders  or  to  the  dangerous  character  of  the  work.  Your 
husband  has  taken  his  life  in  his  hands  in  doing  this  great  task 
for  our  people  and  is  entitled  to  the  credit  and  esteem,  and  above 
all,  to  the  heartiest  support  of  all  good  citizens.  The  infamous 
character  of  the  man  who  has  assassinated  him  should  add  not 
only   to   the  horror  and  detestation   felt  for  the  deed,   but  also  to 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  383 

But  in  spite  of  this  popular  expression  of  sympathy, 
there  were  astonishing  exhibitions  on  the  part  of  the 
associates  of  those  who  had  been  indicted  or  nearly 
indicted  because  of  the  graft  revelations,  of  feeling 
against  Heney.  For  example,  Rev.  David  J.  Evans,  of 
Grace  Episcopal  Church,  on  the  Sunday  following  the 
attempted  assassination,  offered  prayer  for  the  recovery 
of  the  stricken  prosecutor.  Instantly  there  was  com- 
motion in  the  pews.  Members  of  the  congregation,  by 
frown  and  toss  of  head,  indicated  their  profound  dis- 
approval of  their  pastor's  petition. *-°  But  frown  and 
head-toss  and  open  disapproval  of  the  pews  neither 
stopped  the  prayer,  nor  prevented  its  answer.  The 
jirayer  was  offered  ;  Heney  did  not  die. 

Within  an  hour  after  Heney  had  been  shot  down, 
three  of  the  foremost  lawyers  at  the  California  bar, 
Hiram  W.  Johnson,  Matt  I.  Sullivan  and  Joseph  J. 
Dwyer,  volunteered  their  services  to  take  up  the  strug- 


the  determination  of  all  decent  citizens  to  stamp  out  the  power  of 
all   men  of  his   kind. 

"THEODORE   ROOSEVELT." 

420  Grace  Episcopal  Church  is  attended  by  many  of  the  most 
prominent  citizens  of  San  Francisco.  At  the  time  of  the  shooting 
of  Heney,  several  prominent  Episcopalians  were  under  indictment. 
In  spite  of  the  intense  feeling  in  his  congregation,  against  the 
prosecution.  Rev.  Mr.  Evans  continued  to  give  the  work  of  the 
District  Attorney's  office  his  approval.  An  era  of  petty  persecu- 
tions for  Mr.  Evans  followed.  He  was  finally  brought  to  resign  his 
pastorate  and  accept  a  less  important  charge  at  Palo  Alto. 

In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  spite  of  pow- 
erful opposition  to  the  prosecution  of  prominent  Episcopalian  lay- 
men, the  Convocation  of  the  Church  held  at  San  Francisco  In 
August,   1907,   adopted    the   following   resolutions   unanimously: 

"Wliereas,  Our  government  is  imperiled  by  the  criminal  use  of 
wealth   to   influence  legislation;   and 

"Whereas,  Existing  conditions  in  San  Francisco  present  a  moral 
issue;    therefore   be   it 

"Resolved,  That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  convocation,  bribery 
is  always  a  crime  deserving  punishment,  and,  furthermore,  that 
duty  commands  every  Christian  man  to  exert  himself  to  foster  a 
public  recognition  of  the  quality  of  the  crime." 


384  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

gle  for  civic  righteousness  at  the  point  to  which  Heney 
had  carried  it. 

But  the  attorneys  for  Ruef,  having  exhausted  every 
other  delaying  move,  saw  in  the  shooting  of  Heney  op- 
portunity for  further  delay.  They  accordingly  moved 
for  change  of  venue.  Failing  here,  a  motion  was  made 
for  thirty  days'  delay.  This  being  denied,  Ruef's  attor- 
neys moved  that  the  jury  be  dismissed.  This  move 
failing,  an  attempt  was  made  to  examine  the  twelve 
men  in  the  jury  box  to  determine  whether  the  shooting 
had  prejudiced  them  and  unfitted  them  for  jury  service. 
These  many  motions  were  backed  up  with  affidavits 
containing  all  that  had  been  said  at  the  public  meetings, 
and  all  that  had  been  printed  in  San  Francisco  news- 
papers, since  Heney  had  been  shot.  The  reading  of  the 
voluminous  affidavits  consumed  hours.  The  prosecution 
filed  answering  affidavits  which  also  consumed  time. 
But  Judge  Lawlor  finally  denied  all  the  contentions  of 
the  defense  and  ordered  the  trial  to  proceed. 

During  these  proceedings,  the  jury  had  been  locked 
up  in  charge  of  the  regular  court  officials.  The  jury 
had  not  been  in  the  courtroom  when  Heney  was  shot, 
and  from  the  moment  of  the  shooting  had  been  shut 
away  from  the  public.  But  lest  the  jury  had  learned 
something  of  the  shooting,  and  to  account  for  Heney's 
absence.  Judge  Lawlor  deemed  it  incumbent  upon  him 
to  notify  them  that  Heney  had  been  shot,  and  to  ad- 
monish them  that  the  transaction  so  far  as  the  court, 
the  jury,  the  defendant,  the  People  of  the  State,  the 
counsel,   and   all    other    interests    interested   or    involved 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  385 

in  the  trial  were  concerned   was  to  stand  as  though  it 
had  not  occurred.     This  Judge  Lawlor  did.*^^ 

The  trial  itself  was  not  unlike  the  other  graft  trials. 
The  Supervisors  told  the  story  of  their  bribery.  Gal- 
lagher told  how  Ruef  had  given  him  the  money,  and 
how  he  had  given  it  to  Supervisor  Furey.  Furey  tes- 
tified that  he  had  received  the  money  from  Gallagher 
because  of  his  vote  to  grant  the  overhead  trolley  permit 
to  the  United  Railroads.     The  story  had  by  this  time 

421  Judge  Lawlor's  statement  to  the  jury  was  as  follows:  "Gen- 
tlemen of  the  Jury:  I  have  a  few  words  to  say  to  you  before  this 
trial  is  resumed  at  this  time.  Since  you  have  been  sworn  as 
jurors  the  Court  has  on  many  occasions,  with  elaborateness  and 
repetition,  sought  to  convey  to  your  minds  an  understanding  of 
your  duties  as  jurors  in  this  case.  It  has  been  pointed  out  to  you 
that  to  the  charge  which  is  on  trial  here,  the  defendant,  Abraham 
Ruef,  has  interposed  a  plea  of  not  guilty.  That  charge,  consid- 
ered in  connection  with  that  plea,  puts  in  issue,  for  the  determina- 
tion of  this  Court  and  jury,  the  allegations  of  that  charge.  You 
have  been  sworn  as  jurors  to  pass  upon  the  facts  in  the  case  and 
to  apply  those  facts,  when  resolved  from  the  evidence,  to  the  rules 
of  law  which  the  Court  shall  finally  state  to  you  to  govern  you  in 
the  rendition  of  your  verdict.  These  many  admonitions,  as  it  has 
also  been  pointed  out  to  you  from  time  to  time,  are  founded  upon 
a  provision  of  the  law  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Court  to 
administer  those  admonitions. 

"Tlie  purpose  of  the  law  requiring  those  admonitions  to  be 
given  is  that  when  a  jury  is  sworn  to  try  an  action  it  shall  divest 
itself  of  all  matters  which  theretofore  might  have  found  lodgment 
in  the  minds  of  the  members  and  to  proceed  to  render  a  verdict 
solely  upon  the  matters  which  sh.all  be  brought  to  the  attention  of 
the  jury  in  the  due  course  of  judicial  proceedings.  These  constant 
reminders  of  that  duty  are  calculated  to  keep  the  sense  of  jurors 
alive  to  a  full  compliance   therewith. 

"I  doubt  if  anything  I  could  say  at  this  time  would  tend  to 
amplify  what  has  already  been  declared  from  time  to  time  in  that 
behalf,  but  in  view  of  a  transaction  that  occurred  in  the  court- 
room on  the  afternoon  of  Friday,  Novem.ber  13,  1908,  the  Court 
deems  it  proper  to  re-emphasize  with  all  the  power  that  it  may 
command  the  duty  of  the  jury  to  proceed  to  the  further  discharge 
of  its  duty  at  this  time  in  utter  disregard  of  that  transaction.  The 
Court  realizes  that  the  jurors  may  have  heard  or  seen  a  part  of 
that  transaction,  or  that  phases  of  that  transaction  may  have  been 
communicated  to  the  jury.  Now,  without  regard  to  what  extent 
that  assumption  may  be  justified,  the  Court  desires  the  jurors  to 
in  every  manner  relieve  their  minds  of  any  impression  or  any- 
thing that  they  have  heard,  or  anything  that  has  been  said,  or  any- 
thing that  has  been  communicated,  or  that  shall  hereafter  be 
communicated  concerning  that  transaction;  in  other  words,  we  are 
to  resume  this  trial  at  this  time  at  precisely  the  point  that  had 
been  reached  when  the  recess,  during  which  the  transaction  oc- 
curred, was  declared. 

"I  may  state  to  you  generally,  that  on  that  occasion  Mr.  Fran- 
13 


386  The  Shooting  of  Heney 

become  sadly  familiar  to  the  people  of  San  Francisco. 

The  trouble  experienced  with  witnesses  at  former 
trials  characterized  this  trial  as  well. 

Alex.  Lathem,  for  example,  at  one  time  Ruef's 
chauffeur,  disappeared  from  the  State  about  the  time 
the  trial  was  to  begin.  He  was  brought  back  from 
Oregon  under  extradition,  charged  with  having  accepted 
a  bribe  to  leave  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.  On  the 
stand,*^"   Lathem   repudiated   important   evidence   which 


cis  J.  Heney,  the  Assistant  District  Attorney,  was  shot  by  a  man 
bearing  the  name  of  Morris  Haas;  that  Mr.  Heney  was  wounded 
as  a  result  of  that  assault.  Happily  the  injury  was  not  a  serious 
one,  and  at  this  time  there  is  every  indication  that  Mr.  Heney  will 
recover  from  that  injury. 

"Now,  that  transaction,  so  far  as  this  Court  and  the  jury,  the 
defendant  at  the  bar,  the  People  of  the  State  of  California,  the 
counsel  and  all  other  interests  interested  or  involved  in  this  trial 
are  concerned,  is  to  stand  as  though  it  had  not  occurred;  no  per- 
son i.s  to  be  charged  with  any  responsibility  for  that  transaction; 
this  is  not  the  place  for  the  consideration  of  that  transaction. 

"It  may  be  stated  also  to  you  that  the  assailant  afterward  took 
his  own  life  while  he  was  confined  in  the  County  Jail  upon  his 
arrest  in   connection   with   that  transaction. 

"And  neither  matter,  I  repeat,  should  find  any  place  in  your 
minds.  It  should  not  in  any  manner  form  anything  in  the  nature 
of  bias  or  prejudice   concerning  anyone. 

"This  Court  would  despair  of  having  the  law  administered  upon 
the  charge  at  bar  if  the  jurors  did  not  in  every  manner  comply 
with  the  admonition  of  the  Court  to  exclude  that  transaction 
entirely  from  their  minds." 

422  Lathem  testified  before  the  Grand  Jury  that  about  the  time 
the  bribe  money  had  been  passed  he  had  driven  Ruef  to  the  Hirsch 
Bros,  store,  where  Ruef  had  obtained  a  shirt  box.  He  had  then 
driven  Ruef  to  the  offices  of  the  United  Railroads.  Ruef  had  en- 
tered the  offices  with  the  box.  He  had  come  out  later  with  the 
box  and  a  package.  With  box  and  package  he  had  gone  to  his  own 
office,  and  from  there,  taking  the  box  and  package  with  him,  he 
had  been  driven  to  the  safe  deposit  vaults  of  the  Western  National 
Bank. 

Lathem  did  not  testify  before  the  Grand  Jury  until  after  Ruef 
had  confessed,  and  then  Lathem  testified  with  Ruef's  consent.  It 
is  a  significant  fact  that  Lathem  was  sent  out  of  the  State  the  first 
time  not  in  the  interest  of  Ruef  but  of  Tirey  L.  Ford,  head  of  the 
United  Railroads  law  department.  Lathem  went  to  Colorado  on 
an  automobile  trip  with  the  father-in-law  of  Luther  Brown,  one 
of  the  United  Railroad  detectives.  Lathem's  wife  was  permitted 
to  accompany  them  in  the  automobile.  They  stopped  at  the  best 
hotels.     Lathem  v.'as  paid  $150  a  month. 

The  importance  of  Lathem's  testimony  lies  in  the  fact  that  at 
the   time   he   took   Ruef   with    th'c-   «;hirt-box   to   Ford's  office,    Ford 


The  Shooting  of  Heney  387 

he  had  given  before  the  Grand  Jury,  and  to  which  he 
had  made  affidavit.  As  a  minor  incident  of  the  graft 
trials,  Lathem,  because  of  this  incident,  was  indicted 
for  perjury. 

But  in  spite  of  the  backwardness  of  certain  of  its 
witnesses,  the  prosecution  succeeded  in  getting  its  case 
before  the  jury.  The  jury  found  Ruef  guilty  as 
charged.  He  was  sentenced  to  fourteen  years'  penal 
servitude  at  San  Quentin  prison. 


had  just  received  from  the  Relief  corporation  officials  $50,000  in 
small  currency,  which  made  two  large  bundles,  which  were  car- 
ried to  Ford's  office  by  Abbott  and  himself  and  placed  in  Ford's 
desk.  This  was  at  the  noon  hour.  A  little  after  one  o'clock  Ruef 
went  to  the  Western  Pacific  Safety  Deposit  vaults  where  he  then 
had  a  deposit  box.  The  cubic  contents  of  this  box  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  accommodate  those  two  bundles.  Ruef  at  that  time 
secured  two  additional  boxes.  The  cubic  contents  of  all  three 
boxes  together  was  just  sufficient  to  nicely  accomm.odate  said 
two  bundles. 

The  theory  of  the  prosecution  was  that  Ruef  carried  bribe 
money  in  box  and  package. 

At  the  trial,  Lathem  stated  that  the  story  which  he  had  told 
before   the  Grand  Jury  was  not  true. 


CHAPTER   XXVI. 
The  Calhoun  Trial. 

The  trial  of  Patrick  Calhoun  for  offering  a  bribe  to 
Supervisor  Fred  Nicholas  began  immediately  after  the 
holidays,  following  the  Ruef  trials.  The  trial  brought 
into  play  all  the  machinery  of  the  opposition  at  its  worst 
to  the  prosecution.  At  all  points  the  defense  was 
carried  on  on  a  larger  scale  than  at  the  former  trials. 
There  were  more  and  better  lawyers  employed  by  the 
defendant ;  there  were  more  thugs  in  evidence  in  the 
courtroom ;  there  was  greater  activity  on  the  part  of 
the  detectives,  spies  and  agents  engaged  to  meet  the 
efforts  of  the  men  working  under  Detective  Burns. 

Due  largely  to  the  activity  of  this  army  of  opposition 
to  the  prosecution,  the  weakness  of  the  methods  of 
enforcing  the  criminal  law  was  emphasized  even  more 
than  at  the  other  trials,  and  the  defects  shown  up  more 
glaringly. 

To  secure  a  jury  to  try  Ruef,  for  example,  1450 
talesmen  were  called.  This  was  regarded  as  a  record. 
But  before  a  jury  had  been  secured  to  try  Calhoun 
2370  veniremen  had  been  called  into  court,  and  no 
less  than  922  examined.  Thus,  for  every  juror  who  sat 
at  the  Calhoun  trial,  197  talesmen  were  called,  and 
seventy-seven  were  questioned  by  the  attorneys. 

The  estimated  number  of  words  contained  in  the 
transcript    of    the    examination    of   these   talesmen    was 


The  Calhoun  Trial  389 

in  millions.  To  conduct  this  examination  three  months 
were  required.  The  securing  of  a  jury  to  try  Ruef 
occupied  the  time  of  the  court  for  two  months  only. 
But  it  must  be  noted  that  the  securing  of  the  Calhoun 
and  the  Ruef  juries  occupied  five  months — to  try  charges 
contained  in  two  indictments,  whereas  in  all  the  graft 
cases  160  indictments  had  been  brought. 

The  defendants  who  preceded  Calhoun  to  trial  had 
an  army  of  attorneys  to  represent  them.  But  Calhoun's 
line  of  legal  representatives  was  quite  double  that  of 
any  of  his  fellow  graft  defendants  who  had  been  caught 
in  the  prosecution  drag-net. 

Prominent  in  Mr.  Calhoun's  defense  appeared  A.  A. 
Moore,  Stanley  Moore,  Lewis  F.  Byington,  Earl  Rogers, 
J.  J.  Barrett  and  Alexander  King,  supported  by  the 
giant  of  the  California  bar.  Garret  McEnerney.  That 
the  master  mind  of  Garret  McEnerney  was  directing 
many  of  the  graft  defense  cases  had  been  intimated 
from  time  to  time,  but  there  is  no  question  about  Mc- 
Enerney's  part  in  the  defense  of  Calhoun. 

And  opposed  to  the  strongest  men  of  the  California 
bar.  The  People  had  two  representatives.  One  of 
them,  Heney,  was  serving  without  pay,  was  still  a  sick 
man  not  having  fully  recovered  from  his  wound  in- 
flicted but  a  few  months  before,  and  worn  out  from 
the  continued  effort  of  a  three-years'  fight  to  get  at  the 
root  of  municipal  corruption  in  San  Francisco.  The 
second,  a  regularly  employed  Deputy  District  Attorney, 
John  J.  O'Gara,  was  receiving  $300  a  month  for  his 
services.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  some  of  the  best  of 
the  attorneys  for  the  defense,  for  defending  Mr.  Cal- 
houn, received  as  much  in  a  day.     Compared  with  the 


390  The  Calhoun  Trial 

army  of  lawyers  for  the  defense,  the  representation  of 
The  People  was  pitifully  small. 

Through  the  long,  grueling  contest  of  the  trial,  last- 
ing for  five  months  and  eight  days,  *-^  Heney  and 
O'Gara  were  kept  under  constant  strain,  while  the  de- 
fendant's attorneys  relieved  one  another  when  their 
labors  became  irksome. 

The  bulk  of  the  hammering  and  of  the  technical 
quibbling  was  directed  against  Heney.  Heney,  still 
suffering  from  the  effects  of  his  wound,  received  at 
the  Ruef  trial,  worn-out,  over-worked,  harassed  in  the 
public  prints,  would  at  times  become  thoroughly  ex- 
asperated. Every  indication  of  impatience  on  his  part, 
or  of  temper,  was  made  subject  of  attack  in  the  op- 
posing newspapers. ■*-*  These  attacks,  long  persisted  in, 
did  their  part  in  the  general  campaign  to  weary  the 
public  with  the  prosecution,  and  undermine  confidence 
in  Heney. 

The  examination  of  talesmen  for  jury  service  showed 
the  results  of  this  long-continued  campaign.  Many 
talesmen  announced  their  sympathy  with  the  defendants, 
and  deplored  the  prosecution,  which  they  appeared  to 

423  From  January  12,   1909,   to  June  20,   1909. 

424  Earl  Rogers  showed  himself  particularly  clever  at  goading. 
His  ability  in  tliis  line  was  shown  to  advanatge  also,  at  the  trial 
of  Clarence  Darrow,  charged  with  jury  fixing  at  Los  Angeles,  whom 
Rogers  defended.  The  Fresno  Republican  in  comparing  the  two 
cases  said,  in  its  issue  of  July  12,  1912:  "VS'^hen  Heney  tilted,  as 
prosecutor  against  Earl  Rogers  as  an  apologist  for  crime,  he  was 
the  'wild  man  of  Borneo,'  to  the  more  staid  and  polished  mem- 
bers of  the  San  Francisco  bar.  But  now  that  Fredericks  and 
Ford,  prosecutors  of  Los  Angeles,  lost  their  tempers  under  the 
goadings  of  this  same  Rogers  in  the  Darrow  case,  nothing  is  said 
about  the  wild  man  of  Borneo.  Fredericks  and  Ford,  unlike 
Heney,  are  recognized  as  the  socially  elect  of  the  profession,  but 
Heney  in  the  wildest  excitement  of  the  Calhoun  trials,  never  tried 
to  throw  an  ink  bottle  at  Rogers,  as  Ford  tried  to  do  the  other  day. 
Plainly,  as  a  matter  of  social  etiquette,  it  depends  upon  whose  ox 
Rogers  gores." 


The  Calhoun  Trial  391 

believe  had  brought  shame  upon  and  injured  the  city. 
Some  went  so  far  as  to  call  the  prosecution  of  Calhoun 
an  outrage.*-^  Others  intimated  that  the  giving  of 
bribe  money  might  have  been  justifiable.*^^  Such  ex- 
pressions, coming  from  men  of  average  intelligence  and 
ordinarily  law-abiding,  shou'ed  conclusively  that  the 
persistent  efforts  of  the  defense  to  poison  the  public 
mind  against  the  prosecution  was  at  last  bringing  results. 
But  after  months  of  effort  a  jury  was  secured  to 
hear  the  case  and  the  trial  began. 

425  See  footnote  269. 

426  The  Chronicle,  as  early  as  July  10,  1907,  punctured  the  the- 
ory that  the  bribing  of  public  servants  is  justifiable. 

The  Chronicle  said:  "In  the  examination  of  a  talesman  in 
Judge  Lawlor's  court  on  Monday  an  attorney  for  the  defendant 
charged  with  the  crime  of  bribing  city  officials  made  the  statement 
that  San  Francisco  is  divided  on  the  subject  of  punishing  men 
who  have  committed  the  offense  named.  He  said:  'You  know,  of 
course,  that  San  Francisco  is  divided  on  this  graft  question.  Half 
in  favor  of  the  prosecution,  and,  say,  half  contrary  minded.'  Pos- 
sibly he  believes  that  this  is  true,  but  there  is  absolutely  no  foun- 
dation for  the  assumption.  There  is  no  evidence  on  which  to  base 
such  a  statement,  and  it  would  not  have  been  made  if  there  was 
any  possibility  of  determining  its  truth  or  falsity  by  some  simple 
test. 

"It  is  doubtless  true  that  there  are  plenty  of  men  in  this  com- 
munity who  regard  the  crime  of  bribery  lightly,  and  are  ready  to 
defend  it  on  the  ground  that  laxity  in  the  conduct  of  municipal 
affairs  made  it  necessary  to  resort  to  it  or  abandon  all  enterprise. 
But  the  great  majority  of  citizens  take  the  sound  view  tliat  both 
briber  and  bribed  are  equally  guilty  and  equally  deserving  of  pun- 
ishment, and  utterly  refuse  to  accept  the  excuse  that  the  corpora- 
tions which  have  been  systematically  debauching  city  officials  were 
forced  to  that  course.  They  know  that  the  eager  desire  to  secure 
advantages  is  at  the  bottom  of  the  corrupt  condition  of  our 
municipal  affairs,  and  they  feel  that  unless  examples  can  be  made 
of  those  who  liave  shown  a  willingness  to  profit  by  the  greed  and 
turpitude  of  tliose  elected  to  office  the  practice  of  bribing  will  be 
again  resumed  and  continued  as  long  as  there  is  anything  to  be 
gained    by   the   pursuit  of   criminal   methods. 

"Even  if  it  were  true  that  the  community  is  evenly  divided  it 
would  be  outrageous  to  plead  that  fact  as  a  justification  for  the 
commission  of  criminal  acts.  If  San  Francisco  sliould  be  so  lost 
to  shame  that  nine-tenths  of  her  population  regarded  bribery  with 
tolerance,  it  would  be  no  less  a  crime,  but  there  would  be  Infin- 
itely more  reason  for  striving  to  punish  offenders  of  that  charac- 
ter to  save  the  cit>'  from  the  moral  degradation  involved  in  the 
acceptance  of  the  idea  that  it  is  excusable  to  defy  the  laws  by 
debauching  public  officials." 

At  the  time  of  Calhoun's  trial,  however,  The  Chronicle  read 
talesmen  who  sided  with  the  defense  no  such  lecture. 


392  The  Calhoun  Trial 

Heney,  in  his  opening  statement  to  the  jury,  set 
forth  the  prosecution  expected  to  prove  that  Ruef  au- 
thorized James  L.  Gallagher  to  offer  the  bribe  to  Super- 
visor Nicholas ;  that  Ruef  afterwards  gave  the  money 
to  Gallagher  to  pay  Nicholas ;  that  Calhoun  authorized 
Ruef,  either  through  Tirey  L.  Ford,  or  personally,  or 
both,  to  make  the  offer  to  Gallagher  and  to  authorize 
Gallagher  to  make  the  offer  to  Nicholas. 

The  prosecution  showed  by  Gallagher  that  the  offer 
had  been  made  to  Nicholas  and  to  every  member  of  the 
Board  of  Supervisors  with  the  exception  of  Rea.  In 
this,  Gallagher  was  corroborated  by  the  Supervisors. 
Not  only  had  the  offer  been  made,  but  the  bribe  money 
had  been  paid. 

Gallagher  testified  that  he  had  received  $85,000 
from  Ruef  to  be  distributed  among  the  Supervisors  for 
their  votes  which  gave  the  United  Railroads  its  over- 
head trolley  permit,  and  that,  after  keeping  out  $15,000 
for  himself,  he  had  distributed  the  money  among  them, 
giving  to  Supervisor  Nicholas  $4000  of  the  amount. 

Supervisor  Nicholas  testified  that  Gallagher  had 
offered  him  the  bribe  and  had  paid  him  the  money. 

By  the  officials  of  the  United  States  Mint,  the 
prosecution  showed  that  $200,000,  about  the  time  of  the 
bribery,  had  been  turned  over  to  General  Tirey  L. 
Ford,  on  order  from  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  $200,000  could 
not  be  accounted  for  by  the  available  books  of  the 
United  Railroads.  Ruef  and  Ford  were  shown  to  have 
been  in  close  touch  with  each  other  during  the  period. *^^ 

But  nobody  could  be  found  who  had  seen  Ford  pass 
$200,000  to  Mr.  Ruef. 

427  See  Chapter  XV,   "The  Ford  Trials." 


The  Calhoun  Trial  393 

Here  was,  perhaps,  a  weak  link  in  the  prosecution's 
chain  of  evidence. 

Mr.  Calhoun  did  not,  however,  put  General  Ford  on 
the  stand  to  tell  what  he  did  with  the  nioney.  Neither 
did  Mr.  Calhoun  put  Mr.  Ruef  on  the  stand  to  testify 
as  to  the  source  of  the  $85,000  which  Rucf  gave  to 
Gallagher  to  pay  the  Supervisors  for  their  votes  by 
which  the  trolley  permit  was  awarded  to  the  United 
Railroads. 

But,  however  weak  the  link  between  Ford  and  Ruef, 
there  was  no  weakness  in  the  link  between  Calhoun 
and  Ford.  By  evidence  that  could  not  be  disputed,  the 
prosecution  showed  that  Ford  got  $200,000  through 
Calhoun. 

Frank  A.  Leach,  Director  of  the  United  States 
Mint  at  San  Francisco,  testified  that  Calhoun,  with 
General  Ford,  had  called  upon  him  at  the  Mint  some- 
time between  May  22  and  May  24,  1906.'*^®  Calhoun 
called.  Leach  testified,  to  ascertain  how  $200,000,  which 
had    been    transferred    from    the    East    to   his    credit.*-" 

428  The   trolloy-permit  was  granted   May  21,   1906. 

429  The  letter  placing  $200,000  to  Calhoun's  credit  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

"Treasury  Department,  Washington.  May  22,  1906.  Superin- 
tendent of  the  United  States  Mint,  San  Francisco,  Cal.  Sir:  Con- 
firmation is  certified  to  a  telegram  sent  you  this  day,  in  sub- 
stance   as   follows: 

"  'Pay  to  Patrick  Calhoun,  President  TTnited  Railroads,  $200,000; 
to  Lachman  and  Jacobi,  $12,500;  to  Beech  Thompson,  $20,000;  to 
Canadian  Bank  of  Commerce,  $250,000;  on  account  of  original  cer- 
tificates of  deposit  Nos.  5251,  5252,  5253  and  5267,  issued  by  the 
Assistant  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  New  York  city.  In  all 
amounting    to    $482,500. 

"  'Pay  to  master  California  Lodge,  Number  1.  A.  F.  and  A.  M., 
$319.65  on  account  of  original  certificate  of  deposit  No.  112,  issued 
by  the  Assistant  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  Chicago."  Re- 
spectfully, 

"CHARLES    H.    TREAT, 
"Treasurer  of   the   TTnited    States." 


394  The  Calhoun  Trial 

could  be  drawn  out  in  certain  sums  in  favor  of  such 
persons  as  he  might  designate. 

Leach  testified  he  had  furnished  Calhoun  with  the 
desired  information. 

Ford  afterwards  appeared  at  the  Mint  with  an  order 
from  Mr.  Calhoun  for  $50,000/=*"  which  was  paid  to 
him.  Later,  Calhoun  telegraphed  to  Leach  from  Cleve- 
land, Ohio,  to  pay  Ford  a  second  $50,000;  and  still 
later  the  $100,000  remaining. "^^ 

The  Mint  officials  paid  Ford  the  money  in  accord- 
ance with  Mr.  Calhoun's  directions.  Mr.  Calhoun  of- 
fered no  evidence  to  show  why  this  considerable  sum 
was  paid  to  General  Ford,  or  what  General  Ford  was 
supposed  to  have  done  with  it.  Mr.  Calhoun,  when  the 
last  of  the  $200,000  had  been  turned  over  to  General 
Ford,  had  given  Mr.  Leach  a  receipt  ■*"-  in  full  for  the 
amount. 

But  what  was  quite  as  extraordinary  as  this  direct 
evidence  against  Mr.  Calhoun  was  the  ofifer  of  the 
District  Attorney  to  meet  the  defense's  charges  and 
insinuations  against  the   prosecution.     Rudolph   Spreck- 


430  The  telegrams  directing  the  money  to  be  paid  Ford  read: 
"Cleveland,    Ohio,    .July   2S,    Ofi.     Hon.    Frank  A.    Leach.    Superin- 
tendent U.   S.  Mint,   San  Francisco.     Please  pay  to  Tirey  L.   Ford, 
or   order,    fifty   thousand    dollars    and   charge   same    to   my  account. 
Patrick  Calhoun,   President  United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco." 

431  Calhoun's  order  placing  the  $100,000  to  Ford's  credit  read  as 
follows: 

"Cleveland,  Ohio,  August  21,  06.  Hon.  Frank  A.  Leach,  Super- 
intendent United  States  Mint,  San  Francisco.  Please  pay  to  Gen- 
eral Tirey  L.  Ford,  or  order,  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  and 
charge  the  same  to  my  account.  Patrick  Calhoun,  President  United 
Railroads,   San  Francisco." 

432  Calhoun's  final  receipt  for  the  $200,000  was  as  follows: 
"Received  from  Frank  A.  Leach.  Superintendent  U-  S.  Mint,  two 

hundred    thousand    dollars    ($200,000)    on    c/d    No.    5251,    with    Asst. 
Treasurer  U.   S.,  Ne-.v  York.  PATRICK  CALHOUN, 

"President  United  Railroads." 


The  Calhoun  Trial  395 

els  was  called  to  the  stand.  The  attorneys  for  the 
defense  were  invited  to  ask  him  any  questions  they 
saw  fit. 

"From  the  time  we  attempted  to  impanel  this  jury," 
said  Heney,  in  extending  this  invitation,  "the  attorneys 
for  the  defendant  have  been  attempting  to  try  Rudolph 
Spreckels,  James  D.  Phelan  and  God  knows  who  else. 
By  insinuations  they  have  been  endeavoring  to  get  into 
the  mind  of  this  jury  the  idea  that  Mr.  Spreckels  was 
back  of  this  prosecution  for  malicious  purposes  and 
for  gain,  for  profit,  to  get  hold  of  the  United  Railroads. 
I  told  them  when  they  were  making  those  insinuations 
that  I  proposed  to  throw  down  the  bars  to  them ;  that 
I  proposed  to  force  them  to  the  proof;  that  I  would 
put  the  witnesses  upon  the  stand  and  would  not  object 
to  a  single  question  asked  them. 

"The  witness,  Spreckels,  is  now  upon  the  stand,  and 
we  won't  object  to  their  asking  him  anything  on  earth, 
from  the  time  he  was  born  dow^n  to  the  present  day, 
to  the  present  minute." 

One  of  the  most  frequent  charges  which  had  been 
made  against  the  prosecution  was  that  it  had  expended 
money  wrongfully.  Rogers  asked  for  a  statement  of 
the   prosecution's   receipts   and  disbursements. 

Mr.  Spreckels  announced  his  willingness  to  account 
for  every  dollar  expended,  but  refused,  until  he  should 
be  directed  by  the  Court,  to  give  the  names  of  the  con- 
tributors  to  the   fund.*^^ 


433  "I  want  to  protect  those  (the  contributors)  whom  I  prom- 
ised to  protect  in  this  matter,"  said  Spreckels.  "Outside  of  that, 
the  matter  is  entirely  an  open  matter;  I  have  no  concern  In  It." — 
See  Spreckels's  testimony.  Transcript  of  evidence  in  the  matter  of 
The  People  vs.   Patrick  Calhoun,   Page  3385. 


39^  The  Calhoun  Trial 

"Will  you,"  broke  in  Heney  addressing  Calhoun's 
lawyers,  "produce  an  itemized  account  of  moneys  ex- 
pended in  the  defense  of  these  matters?" 

"I  beg  your  pardon?"  questioned  Rogers. 

"I  say,"  said  Heney,  "will  you  produce  an  itemized 
account  of  moneys  expended  in  opposition  to  these 
prosecutions?" 

The  defense  did  not  seize  this  opportunity  to  clear 
itself  of  the  not  unreasonable  suspicion  that  money  had 
been  used  to  influence  jurors  to  vote  for  acquittals;  to 
get  witnesses  out  of  the  State;  to  corrupt  agents  of  the 
prosecution ;  and  perhaps  to  attempt  murder.  On  the 
contrary,  the  attorneys  for  the  defense  denounced  Mr. 
Heney's  suggestion  as  "misconduct." 

Mr.  Spreckels  stated  his  willingness  to  furnish  item- 
ized statement  of  the  prosecution's  expenditures.  This 
he  did.  Furthermore,  he  submitted  himself  to  rigorous 
cross-examination  regarding  the  items  of  his  account. 
But  the  clever  attorneys  for  the  defense  uncovered 
nothing  upon  which  charge  of  wrongful  expenditure  or 
questionable  methods  could  be  based.'*^* 

The  charge  that  Spreckels  had  engaged  in  the  Graft 
Prosecution  to  injure  the  United  Railroads  came  to  as 
sorry  an  ending.  By  competent  witnesses  it  was  shown 
that  the  prosecution  had  been  planned,  and  the  prelim- 
inary work  done,  before  the  bribe-money  in  the  trolley 
deal  had  passed.  Furthermore,  it  was  shown  that 
Spreckels  had  ofifered  to  assist  Calhoun  to  have  the 
time  of  his  franchises  extended,  if  such  extension  were 


434  The  statement  in  full  of  the  expenditures  of  the  prosecu- 
tion, as  shown  in  the  transcript  of  the  Calhoun  trial,  will  be 
found   on   pag«   xxxiv   of  th«  Appendix. 


The  Calhoun  Trial  397 

necessary  for  practical  installation  of  the  conduit  electric 
system,  asking-  only  that  the  unsightly  poles  and  over- 
head wires  be  not  inflicted  upon  the  city.  It  was  only 
when  Calhoun,  dealing  with  a  Board  of  Supervisors  sus- 
pected of  corruption,  showed  conclusively  that  he  pro- 
posed to  install  an  over-head  trolley  system,  whether 
the  people  wanted  it  or  not,  that  Spreckels  and  his  asso- 
ciates organized  their  traction  company.  It  was  shown 
that  the  object  of  the  organizers  of  the  company  was 
to  demonstrate  that  the  conduit  system  was  practical 
for  San  Francisco.  And,  finally,  the  articles  of  in- 
corporation under  which  the  company  proposed  to  oper- 
ate, provided  for  the  transfer  under  equitable  arrange- 
ments of  the  proposed  new  lines  to  the  city,  should  the 
city  wish  at  any  time  to  take  them  over.  Mr.  Spreckels 
and  his  associates  were  shown  not  to  have  had  desire 
or  inclination  to  engage  in  the  street-car  business.  But 
it  was  shown  that  they  proposed  to  fight  for  what  they 
considered  the  best  interests  of  the  city  of  their  birth 
and  residence. 

Another  frequently-made  charge  had  been  that  Heney 
was  the  attorney  for  Rudolph  Spreckels,  directing  a 
privately-conducted  prosecution.^-^    As  a  matter  of  fact, 


435  The  charge  of  private  prosecution  was  raised  early.  The 
Chronicle  of  May  14,  1907,  printed  as  part  of  Ford's  statement  why 
he  did  not  testify  before  the  Grand   Jury,   tlie   following: 

"The  private  interests  that  are  behind  this  attack  upon  the 
officers  of  the  I'nited  Railroads  have  free  access  to  this  juryroom 
through  their  cliosen  counsel  who  has  assumed  to  exercise  all  the 
official  authority  of  the  District  Attorney  of  this  city  and  who,  by 
reason  of  the  exercise  of  such  authority,  has  become  the  legal 
counsellor  and  guide  of  tliis  Grand  Jury. 

"The  officers  of  the  United  Railroads  are  not  unmindful  of  the 
tremendous  power  for  harm  that  lies  in  this  unusual  and  extraord- 
inary situation. 

"They,  therefore,  protest  against  the  consideration  by  this 
Grand  Jury  of  any  evidence  whose  legality  and  sufficiency  cannot 


398 


The  Calhoun  Trial 


Langdon,  and  not  Heney,  headed  the  prosecution,  and 
Langdon  let  it  be  known  at  all  times  that  he  was  the 
final  arbitrator  in  all  questions  growing  out  of  the 
prosecution.  And  at  no  time  did  he  fail  to  assert 
himself.  But  at  the  Calhoun  trial,  the  fishing  expedi- 
tions in  which  the  defense  indulged,  brought  the  facts 
out  convincingly  that  Heney,  far  from  being  in  Spreck- 
els'  employ,  or  directly  or  indirectly  receiving  money 
from  him  for  graft-prosecution  services,  or  any  other 
services,  was  giving  his  time  to  the  city,  without  reward 
or  hope  of  reward. 

Thus,  point  by  point,  the  allegations  which  the  graft 
defense  had  for  three  years  been  making  against  the 
prosecution,  were  shown  to  be  without  foundation  in 
fact.  The  bars  were  down,  as  Heney  put  it.  Rudolph 
Spreckels  and  others  who  had  made  the  prosecution 
possible,  were  under  oath,  and  were  prepared  to  answer 
any  question   that  might  be  put  to  them.     The  ablest 

be  judicially  determined  from  a  full,  complete  and  correct  ti-an- 
script   thereof. 

"Second — The  subpoena  by  which  my  attendance  here  was 
compelled  was  not  only  insufficient  in  both  form  and  substance, 
but  was  served  by  a  privately  employed  detective  who  is  not  a 
citizen  of  California  and  who  is  employed  and  paid  by  private 
interests   notoriously  hostile  to  the  United  Railroads. 

"Third — There  is  here  present  a  person  not  permitted  by  the 
laws  of  this  State  to  be  present,  namely,  an  attorney  nominally 
representing  the  office  of  the  District  Attorney,  while,  in  fact,  rep- 
resenting private  interests  in  no  manner  connected  officially  with 
any  of  the  governmental  affairs  of  this  city  and  State. 

"Fourth — I  am  the  general  counsel  and  legal  adviser  of  the 
United  Railroads  and  its  officers,  and  whatever  knowledge  I  pos- 
sess of  any  of  the  affairs  of  the  United  Railroads  or  of  its  offi- 
cers, has  come  to  me  in  professional  confidence  and,  under  the 
law  of  this  State,  everj'  attorney  is  compelled  to  keep  inviolate, 
and  at  every  peril  to  himself,  preserve  the  secrets  of  his  clients. 

"Fifth — Under  the  statement  of  the  representative  of  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney's  office  in  attendance  before  this  Grand  Jury,  I  feel 
it  my  duty  to  stand  with  the  officers  of  the  United  Railroads  upon 
my  constitutional  rights,  and  the  District  Attorney  knows  that  he 
cannot  In  these  proceedings  compel  me  to  testify,  and  he  also 
knows  that  no  unfavorable  inference  is  permitted  to  be  drawn 
from   our  declination  in   this   regard." 


The  Calhoun  Trial  399 

lawyers,  cunning  in  cross-examination,  selected,  indeed, 
for  their  craft  and  skill  in  searching  out  the  innermost 
secrets  of  witnesses,  were  there  to  question. 

But  not  one  statement  reflecting  upon  the  purposes 
of  the  prosecution,  nor  of  its  motives,  nor  of  its  meth- 
ods, was  brought  out.  The  graft  defense,  free  to  ques- 
tion as  it  would,  was  unable  to  justify  the  insinuations 
of  baseness  of  purpose  and  method ;  nor  to  justify  its 
loosely-made  charges  against  the  prosecution.*^**   . 

Indeed,  the  attorneys  for  Mr.  Calhoun  even  resisted 
full  discussion  of  Mr.   Spreckels'  motives. 

The  intimation,  so  broad  as  to  approach  positive 
declaration,  had  been  made  repeatedly  that  Mr.  Spreck- 
els had  inaugurated  the  graft  prosecution  for  the  pur- 
pose of  injuring  Air,  Calhoun  and  the  properties  which 
he  represented — the  United  Railroads.  On  re-direct 
examination,  ]\Ir.  Spreckels  was  asked  by  the  attorney 
for  the  State  whether,  at  the  time  he  had  first  discussed 
investigation  of  graft  conditions  in  San  Francisco  with 
Mr.  Heney,  he  had  had  any  idea  of  investigating  Mr. 
Calhoun.  Mr.  Barrett,  representing  the  defendant, 
strongly  objected  to  this   line  of  questioning.*^'' 

After  a  wrangle  between  the  attorneys  as  to  the 
matter  of  the  witness's  motives,  Spreckels  was  permitted 
to  make  a  brief  statement  to  the  Court. 

"My  motives,"  he  said,  "have  been  inquired  into, 
and   I  have  indicated  to  ]\Ir.   Rogers    (Calhoun's  attor- 


430  One  of  the  most  complete  answers  to  the  charges  scattered 
nation-wide  by  the  Graft  Defense,  came  from  Dean  John  H.  Wig- 
more  of  the  Northwestern  School  of  Law  at  Chicago,  author  of 
Wigmore  on  Evidence.     (See  footnote  283.) 

437  See  transcript  of  testimony,  The  People  vs.  Patrick  Cal- 
houn,  No.  1436,  page  3723. 


400  The  Calhoun  Trial 

ney)  that  as  far  as  I  am  concerned  the  bars  are  abso- 
lutely down;  I  am  willing  to  take  the  judgment  of  this 
community  as  to  motives,  as  to  my  purposes  and  as  to 
the  truthfulness  of  my  statements  made  here." 

Mr.  Spreckels  was  finally  permitted  to  answer  the 
question.     He  answered  in  the  negative/^^ 

The  defendant  placed  no  witnesses  on  the  stand. 
The  explanation  of  their  peculiar  position  which  the 
United  Railroads  officials  were  looked  upon  to  make 
when  opportunity  offered  was  not  made.  The  denials 
which  they  had  for  three  years  been  indignantly  making 
through  the  newspapers  were  not  stated  under  oath."^ 

438  Mr.  Spreckels  finally  testified  on  this  point  as  follows: 
"Mr.  Heney.  Q.  At  the  time  that  Mr.  Phelan  agreed  to  con- 
tribute the  $10,000,  Mr.  Spreckels,  what  did  you  say,  if  anything, 
about  contributing  yourself?  A.  That  was  in  the  first  meeting, 
I  think,  Mr.  Heney,  and  I  told  him  that  I  was  ready  and  willing 
to  contribute  a  similar  amount;  that  I  believed  it  would  be  possi- 
ble to  get  others  to  join  and  contribute. 

"Q.  At  that  time  was  anything  said  by  any  person  about  pros- 
ecuting Mr.   Calhoun?     A.     Absolutely  no. 

"Q.  Or  any  person  connected  with  the  United  Railroads  Com- 
pany? A.  The  discussion  was  entirely  confined  to  the  administra- 
tion,   the  corrupt  administration   as  we   termed   it. 

"Q.  At  that  time  did  you  have  any  purpose  or  intention  of 
prosecuting  Mr.    Calhoun?     A.     I   had   not. 

"Q.  Did  you  have  any  reason  to  believe  that  Mr.  Calhoun  at 
that  time  had  committed  any  crime?  A.  I  had  no  indication  of 
such  a   crime. 

"Mr.   Moore.     Was   that  time  fixed,   Mr.    Heney? 

"Mr.  Heney.  Yes,  it  was  fixed;  the  first  conversation,  and  he 
has  fixed  it  as  nearly  as   he  could. 

"The  Court.  Have  you  in  mind  the  testimony  on  that  point, 
Mr.  Moore?  There  was  some  reference  to  it  in  an  earlier  part  of 
the  examination. 

"Mr.  Heney.  Q.  When  you  had  the  talk  with  Mr.  Heney  in 
April,  1906,  did  you  say  anything  about  prosecuting  Mr.  Calhoun, 
or  anybody  connected  with  the  United  Rfiilroads?     A.     I  did  not. 

"Q.  Did  you  at  any  time  tell  Mr.  Heney,  that  you  desired  to 
have  him  prosecute  Mr.  Patrick  Calhoun?  A.  I  did  not,  at  any 
time. 

"Q.  Did  you  tell  him  at  aliy  time  that  you  desired  to  have  him 
prosecute  any  person  connected  with  the  United  Railroads  Com- 
pany?    A.     I  did  not." 

439  The  Chronicle  in  its  issue  of  March  19,  1907,  the  day  after 
the  story  of  corruption  of  Supervisors  was  made  public,  refers  to 
the  denials  of  United  Railroads  officials  as  follows: 

"Weeks   ago,    when    the   first   charges   of  a   corruption   fund   was 


The  Calhoun  Trial  401 

The  trial  resulted  in  a  disagreement.  According  to 
published  statements,  purporting  to  come  from  mem- 
bers of  the  jury,  on  the  first  ballot  four  jurors  stood 
for  conviction,  eight  for  acquittal ;  on  the  second,  nine 
for  acquittal,  three  for  conviction.  On  all  the  other 
ballots  the  jurors  stood  ten  for  acquittal  and  two  for 
conviction.**" 


published,  Patrick  Calhoun  issued  from  his  New  York  offices  a 
typewritten  statement,  equivalent  to  about  three-fourths  of  a 
Chronicle  column,   in   which   he   announced: 

"  'I  have  just  seen  the  San  Francisco  papers,  in  which  vague 
charges  are  made  that  the  United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco  paid 
or  caused  to  be  paid  $700,000  for  a  permit  to  use  electricity  on  the 
roads  that  it  formerly  operated  with  cable.  There  is  no  foundation 
for  this  rumor.  The  United  Railroads  of  San  Francisco  never  paid 
or  authorized  any  one  to  pay  on  its  behalf  a  single  dollar  to  the 
Mayor,  Supervisors  or  any  public  official  of  the  city  of  San  Fran- 
cisco or  the  State  of  California.' 

"Late  last  night  the  following  additional  denial  was  Issued  from 
the  office  of  the  United  Railroads: 

"  'I  am  authorized  to  state  in  the  most  positive  way  that  neither 
Mr.  Calhoun  nor  any  officer  of  the  United  Railroads  ever  paid  or 
authorized  anyone   to   pay  one   dollar   to   any  official. 

'THORNWELL.  MULLALLY, 
'Assistant   to  the  President  United  Railroads.'  " 

440  The  following  statement  was  published  over  the  name  of 
Otto  T.  Hildebrecht,  one  of  the  two  Jurors  who  had  voted  to 
convict: 

"As  soon  as  we  entered  the  Jury  room,  I  overheard  a  crowd  of 
the  jurors  in  the  rear  of  the  hall  shouting  'Acquit!  Acquit!'  We 
then  proceeded  to  name  a  foreman.  This  matter  disposed  of,  the 
members  began  balloting. 

"In  the  first  half  hour  three  ballots  were  cast.  On  the  first  vote 
it  stood  8  to  4  for  acquittal.  On  the  second  ballot  Maguire  suc- 
cumbed to  the  pressure.  I  called  upon  him  for  his  reasons  for 
changing  his  vote  and  he  replied:  'Oh,  these  corrupt  conditions 
have  always  prevailed  in  San  Francisco.  The  Supervisors  In  this 
case  are  no  different  from  the  other  men,  who  have  filled  those 
offices.  It  will  always  be  like  that.'  To  combat  this  attitude  on 
Maguire's  part,  I  stated,  'Well,  It  is  time  to  stamp  out  the  crimes 
in  this  city.  In  order  that  the  evil  may  be  corrected  we  must 
put  a  stop  to  it.'     This  seemed  to  have  no  weight  with  Maguire. 

"The  next  ballot  showed  that  Anthes  had  gone  over  to  the 
others.  From  him  I  secured  this  information:  'Oh,  why  I  always 
vote  with  the  majority.'  I  said,  'Why,  how  can  an  honest  man 
take  that  view  of  the  matter?'  I  have  taken  an  oath  and  at  that 
time  announced  that  I  would  try  this  case  solely  on  the  evidence. 

"It  is  plainly  pointed  out  in  the  testimony  of  Sanderson  that 
Calhoun  was  present  when  Ruef  said,  'This  thing  will  go  through 
on  Monday.  It  is  all  settled.'  This  produced  no  impression  upon 
the  others,  although  I  argued  that  such  testimony  alone  proved 
Calhoun's   guilty  knowledge   of   the   plan   to  put   the  deal   through 


402  The  Calhoun  Trial 

Immediately  after  announcement  of  the  verdict,*" 
the  District  Attorney  attempted  to  bring  Calhoun  to 
trial   for  the  alleged  offering  of  a   bribe  to  Supervisor 

when  he  remarked  in  answer  to  Sanderson's  query,  'Then  you 
won't  need  me?'      'I  don't  think  we  do.' 

"I  then  asked  the  other  jurors  to  come  into  court,  they  con- 
tending that  Ruef  had  carried  on  the  conversation  with  Sanderson 
and  that  Callioun  was  an  innocent  witness.  We  asked  to  have 
this  testimony  revealed  and  the  jurors  filed  into  court.  Upon 
returning  to  the  jury  room  we  renewed  our  deliberations. 

"The  other  ten  jurors  came  at  Binner  and  myself  and  sought  to 
induce  me  to  stretch  my  imagination  to  the  end  that  Calhoun  had 
paid  the  money  to  Ruef,  but  only  as  a  fee.  They  acknowledged 
right  there  that  Calhoun  had  paid  over  the  money  but  they  argued 
that  he  didn't  know  that  the  money  was  going  to  be  used  as  a 
bribe  to  the  Supervisors, — only  as  a  fee  to  Ruef.  After  that  I  knew 
that  these  men  had  purposely  taken  the  wrong  view  of  the  whole 
matter.  I  had  called  them  to  account  for  the  remarks  that  the 
testimony  throughout  the  case  was  all  purchased  and  that  Heney 
had  held  the  whip  over  the  Supervisors.  Thereupon  they  backed 
down  on  that  stand  and  made  their  whole  plea  on  the  ground  that 
Calhoun  had  given   the   trolley  money   to   Ruef  as  a  fee. 

"I  disagreed  on  the  ground  that  Heney,  Spreckels  and  the  other 
members  of  the  prosecution  were  not  on  trial  as  they  insisted,  and 
that  the  other  matters,  such  as  the  theft  of  reports  and  suppres- 
sion of  testimony,  had  only  been  touched  upon  during  the  trial  to 
prove  that  Calhoun  knew  that  the  bribery  deal  had  been  carried 
through. 

"  'Can't  you  give  Calhoun  the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  that  he  paid 
this  money  as  a  fee?'  was  the  burden  of  the  others'  argument.  'I 
would  be  willing  to  extend  him  every  chance,'  I  replied,  'but  why 
has  he  not  introduced  these  vouchers  of  the  United  Railroads  in 
court,  then  we  might  see  what  was  paid  to  bribe  the  juries  in  the 
Ford  trials.'  After  this  they  dropped  me  like  a  red-hot  stove.  I 
seemed  to  have  struck  home.  It  was  a  terrifying  ordeal  to  stand 
oft  these  ten  men  for  twelve  hours,  but  I  held  firmly  to  my  course 
and  voted  throughout  upon  my  conscience.  I  should  have  been 
ashamed  to  have  lifted  my  head  in  the  future  had  I  fallen  down 
and  voted  for  an  acquittal.  When  the  deputy,  Mr.  Coyle,  called  to 
convey  the  word  to  Judge  Lawlor  as  to  the  clearness  of  an  agree- 
ment being  reached,  I  met  him  at  t'ne  door  that  night.  'We  shall 
never  reach  an  agreement,'  I  replied,  'unless  these  .men  come  over 
to  my  side.  That  I  fear  shall  never  come  to  pass.'  The  claim  has 
been  made  in  the  Globe  that  I  asked  for  a  secret  ballot.  That  is 
an  untruth,  as  is  the  statement  that  I  am  a  Socialist.  Not  that 
I  am  opposed  to  Socialism,  but  I  have  never  been  inclined  to  their 
views.  Our  political  outlooks  differ.  When  I  told  Coyle  that  there 
was  no  chance  of  a  verdict  being  reached,  the  other  jurors,  one  of 
tliose  standing  alongside  of  me,  punched  me  in  the  ribs  in  an  effort 
to  ma'Ke  me  shut  up,  as  they  figured  that  they  ought  to  be  able  to 
convince  me.  I  have  received  letters  from  all  over  the  State; 
friends  and  acquaintances,  even  utter  strangers,  congratulating  me 
upon  my  stand  in  the  Calhoun  case  and  my  vote  for  conviction." 

441  Calhoun,  after  the  disagreement  of  the  jury  that  tried  him, 
issued  a  statement  to  the  press  in  which  he  bitterly  denounced 
those  who  were  responsible  for  the  prosecution,  and  hinted  at 
retaliation.     He  continued  to  insist  that  Heney  Vv'as  a  corrupt  ofR- 


The  Calhoun  Trial  403 

John  J.  Furey.  This  the  defense  resisted.  The  com- 
munity was  filled  with  the  suggestion  that  the  Calhoun 
jury,  having  failed  to  agree,  the  costly  graft  trials 
should  be  brought  to  an  end.**^ 

Nevertheless,  Calhoun's  second  trial  was  begun.  But 
before  a  jury  could  be  secured,  Francis  J.  Heney  had 
been  defeated   for  election  as   District   Attorney.     This 

cial:  "There  lies  in  the  courtroom,"  said  Calhoun,  "forty  checks 
made  by  Mr.  Rudolph  Spreckels  to  Mr.  Francis  J.  Heney  since  his 
alleged  appointment  as  Assistant  District  Attorney.  Those  checks 
were  deposited  in  the  American  National  Bank  to  his  private 
account.  They  aggregate  $23,800.  The  first  of  them  amounted  to 
$4,900.  They  are  the  price  of  his  infamy.  He  can  not  escape  the 
fact  that  he  is  a  corrupt  public  official  by  the  contention  that  he 
has  been  engaged  in  a  holy  crusade.  He  can  not  defend  the 
acceptance  of  money  from  a  private  citizen  for  the  express  pur- 
pose of  enabling  him  to  devote  liimself  exclusively  to  the  so-called 
Graft  Prosecution  without  committing  the  crime  of  accepting  a 
bribe.  I  here  make  the  formal  and  specific  charge  that  Francis  J. 
Heney  stands  side  by  side  with  James  L.  Gallagher  as  a  corrupt 
public  official.  I  charge  him  with  having  accepted  bribes  and  I 
also  charge  Rudolph  Spreckels  and  James  D.  Phelan  with  having 
given  him  the  bribes;  and  if  we  can  get  a  fair  District  Attorney  in 
the  city  of  San  Francisco  I  propose  at  the  proper  time  and  in  the 
proper  way  to  submit  formal  charges  against  Heney  for  having 
received  bribes  and  Spreckels  and  Phelan  for  having  paid  them." 

Of  Calhoun's  threat  of  prosecution,  The  Call  in  its  issue  of 
June   22,    1909,   said: 

"In  that  soiled  and  motley  retinue  of  strikers  and  heelers,  jury 
fixers  and  gaspipe  men  that  the  head  of  the  Ignited  Railroads  has 
gathered  about  him  were  many  who  made  it  a  business  to  pro- 
claim that  when  the  indictments  came  to  the  test  of  fact  in  court 
the  disposition  of  that  $200,000  would  be  explained  as  a  perfectly 
innocent  matter  in  the  simplest  possible  manner.  How  th.ese  prom- 
ises have  been  fulfilled  we  know.  The  mystery  of  that  $200,000 
remains  as  dark  as  ever.  Not  even  the  stockholders  of  the  com- 
pany are  invited  Into  the  confidence  of  its  president.  It  is  not 
now  the  question,  Where  did  he  get  it?  but  What  did  he  do  with 
it? 

"As  long  as  that  question  remains  unanswered  by  or  for  Cal- 
houn and  as  long  as  he  refuses  to  undergo  cross  examination  and 
the  ordinary  legal  tests  of  proof,  just  so  long  will  tlie  whole  Amer- 
ican public  believe  him  guilty  of  bribery.  As  for  his  threat  of 
some  sort  of  vague  legal  proceedings  against  the  prosecutors,  that 
will  merely  provoke  a  laugh,  as  men  do  laugh  at  a  cheap  and  ob- 
vious  bluff." 

442  The  free  press,  not  only  of  California  but  of  the  entire 
nation,  protested  against  such  a  course.  "San  Francisco,"  said  the 
Pittsburgh  Times-Gazette,  "owes  it  to  the  nation  to  continue  her 
fight  against  the  big  grafters  of  that  town.  If  she  lets  up  now 
the  grafters  the  country  over  will  take  heart,  and  the  next  time 
it  becomes  necessary  to  go  after  the  tribe,  it  will  be  more  difficult 
even  than  it  has  been  in  San  Francisco  to  convict  a  briber." 


404  The  Calhoun  Trial 

meant  the  breaking  down  of  the  graft  prosecution. 
The  District  Attorney  consented  to  continuance  of  the 
case  until  the  new  administration  should  take  charge. 
The  case  was  not  pressed  by  Mr.  Langdon's  successor, 
and  finally,  with  the  other  graft  charges,  was  dismissed. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

The  San   Francisco  Election  of   1909. 

Scarcely  had  the  disagreeing  jury  in  the  Calhoun 
case  been  discharged  than  the  Graft  Prosecution  was 
again  called  upon  to  meet  the  graft  defense  at  the 
polls.  Langdon's  second  term  was  to  expire  the  follow- 
ing January.  His  successor  was  to  be  elected  in  No- 
vember. 

Mr.  Langdon  refused  positively  to  be  a  candidate  to 
succeed  himself.  The  supporters  of  the  prosecution 
turned  to  Heney  as  the  most  available  candidate  to 
oppose  the  elements  united  against  them. 

Heney  did  not  want  to  be  a  candidate.  The  gruel- 
ing contest  of  the  Calhoim  trial,  coupled  with  the  nerve- 
shattering  effects  of  the  wound  in  his  head,  had  brought 
him  to  the  point  of  physical  and  nervous  breakdown. 
But  it  was  demonstrated  to  him  that  he  had  the  largest 
personal  following  in  San  Francisco ;  that  the  public 
had  confidence  in  him ;  that  he  nuist  make  the  fight. 

And  Heney,  doubtful  of  his  physical  ability  to  con- 
tinue to  the  end  of  the  primary  and  final  campaigns, 
consented  to  become  a  candidate. 

There  followed  the  most  astonishing  campaign  for 
municipal  office  ever  held  in  San  Francisco,  or  probably 
in  any  other  American  city. 

California  was  at  the  time  groping  her  way  from 
the  clutch  of  the  Southern  Pacific  "machine."  The 
California   Legislature   of    1909   had   adjourned   after   a 


4o6     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

session  which  had  ended  largely  in  disappointing  failure 
for  the  anti-machine  element.  The  anti-machine  ele- 
ment had  been  in  slight  majority,  but  it  had  blunderingly 
permitted  the  machine  minority  to  organize  both  houses. 
As  a  result,  the  "machine"  had  been  able  to  defeat  the 
passage  of  many  anti-machine — now  known  as  progres- 
sive— measures.  In  other  instances  progressive  meas- 
ures were  before  their  passage,**^  in  the  face  of  the 
earnest  but  unavailable  protest  of  the  well-intentioned 
but  unorganized  anti-machine  majority,  loaded  with 
hampering  amendments. 

Two  of  these  measures  bore  directly  upon  the  San 
Francisco  situation.  The  first  measure  provided  for  the 
Direct  Primary.  The  second  provided  for  the  elimina- 
■tion  of  the  "party  circle"  from  the  election  ballot. 

This  last  named  measure,  known  as  "the  Party 
Circle  bill,"  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  defeated  by  one 
vote  in  the  Assembly.  The  defeated  measure  was  in- 
tended to  restore  the  Australian  ballot  to  its  original 
simplicity   and   effectiveness.*** 

Under  the  machine's  tinkering  of  the  State's  elec- 
tion laws,  the  xA.ustralian  ballot  had  become  a  device  for 
encouraging  partisan  voting.  The  "party  circle"  was 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  column  of  party  candidates. 
A  cross  placed  in  the  circle  registered  a  vote  for  every 
candidate  nominated  by  the  party  designated  by  the 
circle.     The  question   of  "distinguishing  marks"   invali- 


443  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legislature  of  1909,"  Cliapters 
VIII,   IX,   X,   XI. 

444  This  reform  was  accomplished  at  the  Legislative  session  of 
1911.  The  undesirable  provisions  were  also  stricken  by  amendment 
from  the  Direct  Primary  law.  See  "Story  of  the  California  Legis- 
lature   of   1911." 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     407 

dating  entire  ballots  was  ruled  upon  so  closely  by  the 
State  courts,  that  many  voters  voted  by  means  of  the 
one  cross  in  the  party  circle  to  avoid  the  risk  of  having 
their  entire  ballot  denied  counting  because  of  technical 
defects  that  might  creep  in  if  a  divided  ticket  were 
voted.  Had  the  "Party  Circle  bill"  become  a  law  it 
would  have  eliminated  the  "party  circle"  from  the  ballot, 
leaving  the  voter  to  select  individual  candidates  of  his 
choice.  The  one  Assembly  vote  that  defeated  this 
measure  after  it  had  passed  the  Senate,  went  far  toward 
bringing  the  San  Francisco  Graft  Prosecution  to  an  end. 
The  Direct  Primary  measure  was  not  defeated,  nor 
did  the  machine  element  succeed  in  amending  it  into 
complete  ineffectiveness.  The  anti-machine  Republicans 
and  Democrats,  by  joining  in  non-partisan  caucus  on 
this  measure,  succeeded  in  forcing  the  passage  of  the 
Direct  Primary  bill,  but  they  were  not  able  to  keep  it 
free  of  defects.  Harassed  by  the  machine  at  every  turn, 
the  anti-machine  Senators  and  Assemblymen  w^ere  com- 
pelled to  accept  many  undesirable  provisions. ^''^ 

445  "Before  voting  on  this  matter,"  (the  Direct  Primary  pro- 
visions) said  Senator  Stetson,  an  anti-machine  leader  in  explain- 
ing his  vote,  "lest  any  one  in  t!ie  future  m.ay  think  that  I  have 
lieen  passed  something-  and  didn't  know  it,  I  wish  to  explain  my 
vote,  and  wish  to  say  that  this  permission  accorded  a  candidate  to 
go  on  record  to  support  that  candidate  for  Ignited  States  Senate, 
who  shall  have  the  endorsement  of  the  greatest  number  of  dis- 
tricts, comes  from  nobody  and  goes  to  nobody.  It  means  nothing 
— mere  words — idle  words.  The  only  way  in  which  a  candidate 
could  have  been  pledged  would  have  been  to  provide  a  pledge  or 
instructions  to  the  Legislature.  The  words  'shall  be  permitted' 
mean  nothing  and  get  nowhere.  I  shall  vote  for  this  report,  not 
because  I  want  to.  but  because  I  have  to  if  we  are  at  this  session 
to   have  any   Direct  Primary  law  at   all." 

Senator  Stetson  was  referring  particularly  to  the  section  which 
denied  the  people  by  state-wide  vote  the  right  to  indicate  their 
preference  for  United  States  Ser.ator,  but  his  words  would  have 
applied  as  directly  and  as  truly  to  otiier  sections  of  the  measure. 

Other  good  government  Senators  did,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  de- 
nounce the  very  partisan  clause  which  later  contributed  so  largely 
to    Heney's   defeat.      Senators    Campbell,    Holohan   and   Miller,    for 


4o8     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

One  of  these  provisions  bore  directly  upon  the  San 
Francisco  election  of  1909,  and  contributed  to  a  large 
extent  to  the  outcome. 

This  clause  required  a  primary  candidate  to  make 
affidavit  giving  "the  name  of  his  party  and  that  of  the 
office  for  which  he  desires  to  be  a  candidate ;  that  he 
affiliated  with  said  party  at  the  last  preceding  general 
election,  and  either  that  he  did  not  vote  thereat  or 
voted  for  a  majority  of  the  candidates  of  said  party  at 
said  next  preceding  general  election,  and  intends  to  so 
vote  at  the  ensuing  election." 

At  the  time  this  section  was  under  consideration, 
anti-machine  legislators  and  the  unhampered  press 
pointed  out  that  under  it,  District  Attorney  Langdon 
could  not,  in  all  probability,  have  been  nominated  nor 
•re-elected  in  1907 ;  that  Mayor  Taylor's  election  of  that 
year  would  have  been  impracticable,  if  not  impossible ; 
that  Judge  Dunne  would  have  been  hampered  to  the 
point  of  defeat  in  1908 ;  that  under  it,  both  in  1907  and 
1908,  the  so-called  "higher-up"  element  in  the  field  of 
corruption  would  have  been  given  an  advantage  which 
the  better  citizenship  of  the  community  would  have  had 
difficulty  in  overcoming.**^ 

But   the  machine   element  denounced  these  not   un- 

example,    while    voting   for    the    bill,    sent    to    the    clerk's    desk    the 
following  explanation  of   their  vote: 

"We  voted  for  the  Direct  Primary  bill  because  It  seems  to  be 
the  best  law  that  can  be  obtained  under  existing  political  condi- 
tions. We  are  opposed  to  many  of  the  features  of  this  bill,  and 
believe  that  the  people  at  the  first  opportunity  will  instruct  their 
representatives  in  the  Legislature  to  radically  amend  the  same  in 
many  particulars,  notably  in  regard  to  the  election  of  United  States 
Senators,  and  the  provisions  that  prevent  the  endorsement  of  a 
candidate  by  a  political  party  or  organization  other  than  the  one 
that  first   nominated    such   candidate." 

446  See  files  of  Sacramento  Bee  for  February  and  March,  1909, 
and  Senate  Journal  for  March  22,  1909,   page  1976. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     409 

reasonable  objectors  as  "enemies  of  the  Direct  Primary 
bill,"  and  under  cover  of  the  denunciation,  and  the 
fight  for  practical  expression  of  popular  choice  for 
United  States  Senators,  the  objectionable  clause  was 
permitted  to  remain  in  the  bill. 

No  sooner  had  the  Legislature  adjourned  than  judi- 
cial interpretation  of  the  partisan  clause  of  the  Direct 
Primary  Act  became  necessary.  The  San  Francisco 
primary  election  was  at  hand,  and  the  partisan  pro- 
visions of  the  new  law  proved  the  first  snag  which  the 
various   candidates  encountered. 

Although  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  machine 
as  well  as  anti-machine,  voted  for  the  bill,  believing 
that  the  partisan  clause  restricted  primary  nominations 
to  members  of  the  party  of  the  candidates'  affiliation, 
the  San  Francisco  Election  Commissioners  held  there 
was  nothing  in  the  law  to  prevent  the  name  of  a  Re- 
publican appearing  on  the  Democratic  ticket,  or  of  a 
Democrat  on  the  Republican  ticket,  provided  the  can- 
didate made  affidavit  of  the  party  of  his  affiliation. 

Under  this  ruling  it  appeared  that,  in  spite  of  the 
objectionable  partisan  provision  of  the  Direct  Primary 
law,  the  San  Francisco  election  could  be  held  on  the 
non-partisan  basis  which  had  resulted  in  the  election 
of  Taylor  and  Langdon  two  years  before.  The  one 
issue  before  the  San  Francisco  electors  was  continuance 
of  the  Graft  Prosecution.  The  supporters  of  the  prose- 
cution, Republicans  as  well  as  Democrats,  desired  to 
vote  for  Heney.  McCarthy  was  the  avowed  Labor 
L'nion  party  candidate  for  Mayor.  The  Union  Labor 
party  was  considering  the  nomination  for  District  At- 


4IO     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

tomey  of  Charles  M.  Fickert.  The  prospects  were 
good  that  Heney  would  receive  the  Republican  and 
Democratic  nominations,  as  Langdon  had  two  years 
before.  He  was  supported  by  the  better  element  of 
both  parties,  and  opposed  by  the  anti-prosecution  ele- 
ment of  both.  This  opposition  found  expression  in  the 
Republican  party  in  a  committee  of  twenty-five,  at  the 
head  of  which  was  I.  W.  Hellman,  Jr.,  of  the  Union 
Trust  Company.*^^  The  better  element  of  the  party 
planned  the  nomination  of  Heney,  as  did  the  better 
element  of  Democrats. 

On  a  non-partisan  basis,  such  as  had  prevailed  in 
1907,  the  Union  Labor  party  would  have  nominated 
McCarthy  for  Mayor,  and  Fickert  for  District  Attorney, 
while  the  anti-machine,  pro-prosecution  Democrats  and 
Republicans  would  have  nominated  a  strong  candidate 
for  Mayor,  and  Heney  for  District  Attorney. 

Conditions  were  thus  shaping  themselves  admirably 
for  continuance  of  the  non-partisan  administration  of 
municipal  affairs,  which  had  at  least  blocked  corruption, 
even   though   it   had   not   beaten   down   the   barriers   of 


447  The  Union  Trust  Company  loaned  $175,000  to  the  Calkins' 
Syndicate,  which  published  papers  in  opposition  to  the  prosecution. 
For  the  curious  circumstances  under  whicli  the  loan  was  made, 
see  footnote  275,  page  257.  The  Union  Trust  Company  officials 
were  among  the  most  effective  opponents  of  the  prosecution,  and 
most  persistent  in  circulating  the  story  that  the  prosecution  hurt 
business.  The  head  of  the  institution,  I.  W.  Hellman,  Sr.,  returning 
early  in  August  from  a  trip  to  Europe,  v/Iien  the  1909  campaign 
was  opening,  said  in  an  interview,  published  in  the  Chronicle, 
August  4,  1909:  "In  New  York  I  found  that  there  is  still  a  great 
difficulty  in  securing  capital  for  San  Francisco  on  account  of  the 
Graft  Prosecution,  or  the  'graft  persecution,'  as  they  call  it  there. 
Of  course,  I  do  not  know  what  changes  have  occurred  in  the  situa- 
tion here  since  I  left  six  months  ago,  but  I  had  an  Interview  with 
certain  people  in  New  York  and  I  found  that  they  were  unwilling 
to  send  capital  here  as  long  as  this  'graft  persecution'  was  con- 
tinued." 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     411 

technicality,  which  stood  between  the  corruptors  of  the 
municipal  government  and  law-provided  penalties. 

But  this  developing'  non-partisan  arrangement  was 
suddenly  overturned  in  an  opinion  rendered  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  reversing  the  ruling  of  the  Election 
Commissioners. 

The  court  held  that  the  partisan  provisions  of  the 
Direct  Primary  law  prohibited  the  name  of  a  primary 
candidate  appearing  upon  any  primary  ticket  except  that 
of  the  party  of  the  candidate's  affiliations. 

Under  this  ruHng,  Fickert's  name  could  not  go  on 
the  Union  Labor  party  primary  ticket,  for  Fickert  had 
affiliated  with  the  Republican  party.  The  Hellman  com- 
mittee of  twenty-five  (Republican)  immediately  took  up 
the  Union  Labor  party  candidate  for  District  Attorney, 
whose  name  could  not  go  on  the  Union  Labor  party 
primary  ticket,  Mr.  Fickert  being  apparently  quite  as 
satisfactory  to  Mr.  Hellman  and  his  associates  as  he 
was  to  Mr.  McCarthy. 

Heney,  under  the  Supreme  Court's  ruling,  found 
himself  in  a  more  difficult  position.  With  other  Califor- 
nia Progressives,  Fleney  had  in  1908  supported  Taft 
for  the  Presidency.  His  political  affiliations  were  there- 
fore, under  the  provisions  of  the  Direct  Primary  law, 
Republican.  His  name  could  be  placed  on  the  Repub- 
lican primary  ticket,  but  not  on  the  Democratic.  But  it 
soon  became  evident  that  if  his  name  went  on  the  Re- 
publican ticket  he  would  be  defeated  at  the  primaries. 

The  registration  of  voters  under  their  party  designa- 
tion to  enable  them  to  vote  at  the  partisan  primaries 
showed   an   astonishing   condition.      The   machine,    anti- 


412     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

prosecution  element  was  discovered  to  be  massing  its 
strength  in  the  RepubHcan  party.  Two  years  before, 
Daniel  A.  Ryan,  the  Republican  candidate  for  Mayor, 
had  received  only  9255  votes  in  San  Francisco,  while 
Taylor,  the  Democratic  candidate,  had  received  28,766, 
and  McCarthy,  Union  Labor,  17,583.  But  for  the  1909 
primaries,  no  less  than  47,945  registered  as  Republicans, 
a  gain  of  38,609  over  Ryan's  vote,*^^  while  the  Demo- 
cratic registration  was  17,632  only,  11,134  less  than 
Taylor's  vote,  and  the  Union  Labor  registration,  10,546, 
or  7037  less  than  McCarthy's  vote  in  1907.  Heney's 
name  could  not  go  on  the  Democratic  ballot.  If  he 
permitted  it  to  go  on  the  Republican  ballot,  the  tre- 
mendous Republican  registration  indicated  that  the  anti- 
machine  Republicans  would  be  outvoted  by  "machine" 
members  of  all  parties  who  had  registered  as  Republi- 
cans. 

By  another  provision  of  the  election  laws,  Heney, 
should  he  be  defeated  at  the  primaries,  could  not  become 
an  independent  candidate ;  defeat  at  the  primaries  barred 
him  from  running  at  the  final  election. 

Heney  was  effectively  shut  out  from  participating  as 
a  primary  candidate.  And  this,  in  face  of  the  fact  that 
the  anti-machine  Republicans  and  the  anti-machine  Dem- 
ocrats were  striving  to  make  him  their  candidate. 

Had  the  1909  primary  law  prevailed  in  1907,  Lang- 
don's  re-election  could  have  been,  and  almost  to  a  cer- 
tainty would  have  been  blocked,  and  the  Graft  Prose- 
cution brought  to  an  end  two  years  before  it  was. 

448  Ryan  did  not  receive  his  full  party  vote  (see  chapter  XXI) 
while  Taylor  received  the  anti-machine  vote  of  all  parties.  Never- 
theless, this  does  not  account  for  the  extent  of  the  astonishing 
changes   in   registration. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     413 

At  the  1909  Primary  election,  Heney's  name,  al- 
though he  was  the  choice  of  the  anti-machine  element 
of  all  parties,  did  not  appear  on  any  of  the  primary 
ballots.'***  Nevertheless,  4594  Republicans  wrote  Heney's 
name  on  their  primary  ballots.  But  this  was  not  suffi- 
cient to  give  him  the  nomination.  Fickert,  whose  name 
appeared  on  the  Republican  ballot,  as  a  regular  candi- 
date, received  12,480  votes,  which  gave  him  the  Repub- 
Hcan  nomination. 

On  neither  the  Democratic  nor  Union  Labor  primary 
tickets  did  the  name  of  any  candidate  for  District  At- 
torney appear.  The  McCarthy  element  urged  that  Fick- 
ert's  name  be  written  in  by  Union  Labor  party  voters. 
They  carried  their  point.  Fickert  being  nominated  by 
the  Union  Labor  party  by  3308  votes.  But  even  here 
there  was  registered  protest  at  what  was  going  on. 
Union  Labor  party  voters  to  the  number  of  617  wrote 
Heney's  name  on  their  ballots. 

In  the  same  way.  a  determined  effort  was  made  to 
give  Fickert  the  Democratic  nomination  also.  He  re- 
ceived 2298  votes.  But  the  pro-prosecution  Democrats 
rallied  to  Heney's  support,  and  nominated  him  by  a 
vote  of  2386.  Thus  out  of  a  total  of  28,967  who  voted 
for  nomination  of  District  Attorney,  no  less  than  7597, 
or  more  than  25  per  cent.,  wrote  Heney's  name  on  their 

449  It  Is  interesting'  to  note  that  the  politicians  responsible  for 
this  condition,  and  who  regarded  Heney's  position  at  the  1909  pri- 
maries with  no  attempt  to  conceal  their  amusement,  were  in  1912, 
loudest  in  their  insistence  that  they  had  been  disfranchised  be- 
cause the  names  of  Taft  electors  did  not  appear  on  the  California 
election  ballot  at  tl.e  1912  election.  It  is  also  to  be  noted  that 
their  representations  were  based  on  misrepresentation.  They  could, 
under  the  1911  election  laws,  had  they  had  any  intention  of  giving 
Taft  genuine  support  in  California,  have  placed  the  names  on 
the  ballot  by  petition,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  the  Roosevelt 
electors,  who,  lest  their  regular  nomination  be  questioned,  were 
also  nominated  by  petition. 


414     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

ballots,  in  protest  against  the  partisan  conditions  which 
made  his  regular  nomination  impractical. 

The  law  was  new ;  the  election,  the  first  held  in  the 
State  under  the  Direct  Primary.  It  was  difificult  to 
make  the  electors  understand  they  could  vote  to  nominate 
Heney  by  writing  his  name  on  the  ballot.  Of  the  38,385 
who  voted  at  the  primaries  only  28,967  voted  for  Dis- 
trict Attorney.  Unquestionably,  a  large  percentage  of 
those  who  did  not  vote  at  all,  would  have  written 
Heney's  name  on  the  ballot  had  they  known  that  such 
a  course  was  permissible.  But  they  did  not  know,  and 
more  than  25  per  cent,  of  those  voting  did  not  vote  for 
District  Attorney.  As  the  Rev.  Charles  N.  Lathrop 
put  it :  "They  have  Heney  sewed  up  in  a  bag,  and  the 
bag  is  the  partisan  features  of  the  Direct  Primary."  *^° 

Out  of  this  confusing  primary  election,  Fickert  came 
with  two  party  nominations,  the  Union  Labor  and  the 
Republican,  while  Heney  had  one  nomination,  the  Demo- 
cratic. This  meant  that  Fickert's  name  would  be  printed 
twice  on  the  final  ballot  under  partisan  designation, 
while  Heney's  would  be  printed  but  once.  Thus,  for 
every  chance  Heney  had  for  a  "party  circle"  vote  Fick- 
ert had  two. 

The  prosecution  forces  had  supported  Byron  Mauzy 


450  The  California  Legislature  of  1911  corrected  the  features  of 
the  election  laws  which  blocked  free  expression  of  the  will  of  the 
electors.  San  Francisco,  by  amendment  of  its  charter,  has  since 
placed  all  municipal  elections  on  a  strictly  non-partisan  basis, 
with  provisions  under  which  no  candidate  can  be  elected  by  a 
plurality  vote.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  although  opposed  by 
Mayor  McCarthy  and  the  group  of  politicians  about  him,  these 
amendments  correcting  the  weaknesses  of  the  election  laws,  were 
adopted  overwhelmingly.  McCarthy's  vote  in  1911  was  practically 
the  same  as  the  vote'  by  wiiich  he  was  elected  in  1909.  Had  the 
election  been  held  under  the  same  conditions  in  1911,  as  in  1909, 
McCarthy  would  almost  to  a  certainty  have  been  re-elected. 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     415 

for  Republican  nomination  for  Mayor,  but  Mr.  Mauzy  *" 
was  defeated  by  William  Crocker,  who  received  the  Re- 
publican nomination.  The  Democrats  nominated  Thomas 
B.  W.  Leland  for  the  mayoralty  ofifice,  while  the  Union 
Labor  party  named  P.  H.  McCarthy.  The  mayoralty- 
district  attorney  tickets  were,  therefore:  Republican, 
Crocker  and  Fickert ;  Union  Labor,  McCarthy  and  Fick- 
ert ;  Democratic,  Leland  and  Heney.  But  the  issue  be- 
fore San  Francisco,  continuance  of  the  Graft  Prosecu- 
tion, had  no  partisan  significance  at  all.  It  was  sup- 
ported and  it  was  opposed  by  members  of  both  parties. 
The  whole  fight  was  over  the  election  of  Heney.  But 
never  had  candidate  for  ofifice  opposition  which  had  more 
at  stake. *®^ 

Men  with  apjiarently  unlimited  means  at  their  dis- 
posal, realized  that  Heney's  election  would  in  all  proba- 
bility mean  for  them  a  term  in  the  State  prison.  They 
were  fighting  for  their  liberty.  The  commercial  inter- 
ests were  warned  that,  in  the  words  of  L  W.  Hellman, 
Sr.,  the  banker,  the  Graft  Prosecution  was  hurting  busi- 


451  Mr.  Mauzy  had  the  activo  opposition  of  the  anti-prosecu- 
tion element,  which  proposed  that  old  sores  be  forgotten,  and  the 
city  be  kept  free  of  graft  in  the  future. 

"If  you  think,"  said  The  Chronicle,  on  August  17,  1909,  "San 
Francisco  is  suffering  injury  from  the  fruitless  effort  to  obtain  con- 
victions in  cases  in  which  evidence  is  lacking,  vote  the  Byron 
Mauzy  ticket.  If  you  believe  that  the  sane  thing  to  do  is  to  cease 
wasting  money  over  the  attempt  to  accomplish  the  impossible, 
vote  for  candidates  who  can  be  depended  upon  to  give  the  city 
an   administration   from  which  graft  will  be  eliminated   in  future." 

452  The  platform  expressions  on  the  Graft  Prosecution  issue  are 
Interesting.  Tlie  Republican  platform  made  no  reference  to  it  at 
all.  There  was  some  talk  of  providing  that  "the  District  Attorney 
should  do  his  duty,"  but  not  even  this  was  provided.  The  Union 
Liabor  party  plank  on  this  ciuestion   read  as  follows: 

"We  believe  in  the  principle  of  the  equality  of  all  men  before 
the  law;  that  every  guilty  person  should  be  prosecuted  with  vigor, 
in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  the  administra- 


41 6     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

ness.*^^  The  anti-Graft  Prosecution  press  insisted  day 
after  day  that  briber}'  of  public  officials,  while  bad,  is  the 
most  common  of  crimes  and  the  most  difficult  to  prove; 
that  San  Francisco  had  tried  to  convict,  had  failed  and 
might  as  well  give  up.  So-called  "improvement  clubs" 
went  so  far  as  to  adopt  resolutions  not  only  protesting 
against  further  prosecution,  but  demanding  that  the  Su- 
pervisors withdraw  support  given  the  District  Attorney's 

tion  of  the  law  should  be  free  from  any  and  all  suspicion  of  pri- 
vate control.  We  condemn  favoritism  or  leniency  in  behalf  of  any 
offender  before  the  law,  or  any  compromise  with  criminals.  We 
demand  that  any  and  all  offenders  be  dealt  with  alike,  and  to  such 
end   we   pledge   our   nominees." 

The  Democratic  plank  alone  pledged  support  to  the  Graft  Prose- 
cution.    It  read: 

"We  pledge  the  Democratic  party  absolutely  and  unequivocally 
to  the  support  of  the  Graft  Prosecution  which  for  three  years  has 
valiantly  battled  for  the  principle  of  the  equality  of  all  men  be- 
fore the  law,  which  has  secured  convictions  against  disheartening 
odds  and  has  paved  the  way  for  the  clean  administration  of  public 
affairs  which   we  now  enjoy. 

"The  people  must  declare  at  this  critical  election  for  or  against 
municipal  corruption ;  for  the  enforcement  of  the  law,  or  for  its 
abandonment;  for  or  against  not  only  a  greater  but  a  better  San 
Francisco. 

"Francis  J.  Heney,  our  candidate  for  District  Attorney,  em- 
bodies these  issues,  and  we  pledge  him  the  vigorous  and  loyal 
support   of  the  Democratic  party." 

453  The  "hurt  business"  argument  was  ably  combated  by  busi- 
nessmen who  were  free  of  the  graft  mire. 

"From  all  the  available  information  at  hand,"  said  Colonel 
Harris  Weinstock,  of  the  firm  of  Weinstock-Lubin  &  Co.,  in  re- 
plying to  this  argument,  "I  find  that  on  the  whole  the  volume 
of  business  is  greater  in  San  Francisco  than  it  ever  was  before. 
I  am,  therefore,  unable  to  see  how  business  has  been  hurt  by  the 
Graft  Prosecution. 

"The  burden  of  proof  on  this  point  properly  rests  with  those 
making  the  charge.  They  should  present  facts  and  figures  verifying 
their  statement  that  business  has  been  hurt  by  the  graft  prosecution 
before  they  can  hope  to  have  it  accepted  as  fact. 

"So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  find  out,  the  Graft  Prosecution 
has  not  hurt  business,  but  even  if  it  had  seriously  crippled  busi- 
ness it  would  still  be  your  duty  and  my  duty  and  the  duty  of 
every  lover  and  well-wisher  of  our  free  institutions  to  hold  up 
the  hands  of  those  who  are  fighting  your  battle  and  my  battle  in 
an  effort  to  bring  public  wrongdoers  to  justice,  and  thus  prevent 
harm   from   coming  to   the   republic.     Let  the  work  go   on." 

The  American  National  Bank  of  San  Francisco,  in  a  financial 
letter  issued  August  25,  1909,  gave  figures  which  disproved  the  Hell- 
man  idea. 

"It  is  significant  of  San  Francisco's  credit  standing  in  the 
world  at  large,"  the  latter  read,   "that  the  bonds  of  this  city  com- 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     417 

office  in  its  efforts  to  land  bribe-givers  behind  the  bars.*^* 
And  finally,  the  large  business  interests  opposed  to  the 
prosecution,  threw  strength  to  McCarthy;  not  that  they 
Hked  McCarthy — they  united  against  him  two  years  later 
— but  because  the  election  of  McCarthy  would  go  far 
toward  the  defeat  of  Heney.  Members  of  the  labor 
unions  were,  to  a  large  extent,  supporters  of  the  prose- 
cution.    Their  votes  had  made  Langdon's  election  sure 


mand  prices  that  compare  favorably  with  the  issues  of  other  large 
municipalities,  as  measured  by  the  low  interest  return  which  in- 
vestors are  willing  to  accept.  To  illustrate:  For  every  $1,000 
put  into  municipal  bonds  at  present  figures,  the  purchaser  would 
receive   per  annum: 

"From  San    Francisco    bonds    $39.00 

"From  Philadelphia    bonds    37.00 

"From  Cincinnati     bonds     37.50 

"From  Cleveland    bonds     37.50 

"From  St.   Louis   bonds    38.80 

"From  Pittsburg    bonds     37.00 

"From  Chicago    bonds     38.50 

"From  Minneapolis    bonds    38.50 

"From  Milwaukee    bonds     39.00 

"From  New  York   bonds    39.50 

"Considering  these  facts,  and  the  readiness  with  which  the  San 
Francisco  bonds  are  being  taken,  it  does  not  appear  that  this  city 
is  suffering  in  reputation,  as  some  people  affect  to  believe,  by 
reason  of  certain  trials  which  have  engaged  the  attention  of  the 
criminal   courts    for    two    years   past." 

"I  have  no  patience,"  said  Heney,  in  discussing  the  Hellman 
argument,  "with  this  talk  that  we  hear  from  merchants  and  bank- 
ers that  the  Prosecution  is  hurting  business.  They  heard  the 
same  talk  in  Boston  when  our  Revolutionary  sires  threw  tea  over- 
board. It  would  hurt  business,  they  said,  to  have  a  war  with 
England.  I  can  see  the  picture,  wlnen  Thomas  Jefferson  was  sign- 
ing the  Declaration  of  Independence,  of  a  large  man,  who  looked 
like  the  cartoonist's  representation  of  a  corporation  offlcial,  com- 
ing through  the  door  behind  him  and  shouting,  'Hold  on,  Tom, 
you'll  hurt  business.'  And  when  Washington  was  spending  that 
terrible  winter  with  his  army  at  Valley  Forge,  the  same  class 
of  men  who  are  now  crying  at  us  in  San  Francisco  were  shouting 
for  the  war  to  stop.  'Damn  principle,'  they  were  crying.  'It's 
hurting  business.     This  war  must  stop.'  " 

454  "It  is."  said  the  Chronicle,  commenting  upon  the  adoption 
of  such  resolutions,  "a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  there 
is  a  widespread  feeling  among  those  whose  good  citizenship  cannot 
be  disputed  that  the  city,  having  done  its  best  for  three  years, 
without  success,  to  find  legal  proof  which  would  connect  officials 
of  the  corporations  which  profited  by  the  corruption  of  the  Schmitz 
administration  with  the  crime  of  bribery,  it  is  necessary  to  dis- 
continue the   effort.     Hitherto  no  one  has  been  willing  to   formally 

14 


41 8     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

in  1907.  During  the  1909  campaign,  and  down  to  the 
very  day  of  election,  the  sentiment  among  laboring  men 
was  to  vote  for  McCarthy  and  Heney.  But  Heney's 
name  did  not  appear  on  the  Union  Labor  ticket. 

Labor's  support  of  Heney  was  vigorously  opposed. 
Appeal  was  made  to  workingmen  to  stay  by  their  class; 
to  vote  for  the  labor  candidates,  McCarthy  and  Fickert. 
On  the  Monday  night  before  the  election,  the  writer,  with 
Professor  George  H.  Boke  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia Law  School,  joined  a  group  of  working  men  who 
were   discussing  the   merits   of   the   several   candidates. 


approach  the  authorities  in  the  matter  lest  he  should  appear  to 
show  sympathy  with  evildoers.  The  Richmond  Club,  however, 
has  formally  memorialized  the  Supervisors  to  withdraw  further 
support  by  appropriations  on  the  ground  that  it  has  become  ap- 
parent that  success  is  impossible,  and  that  further  effort  would 
be  not  only  a  waste  of  money  and  energy  but  serve  to  keep  be- 
fore the  world  the  memory  of  a  most  disgraceful  epoch  in  our 
history. 

"Bribery  of  public  officials  is  the  most  dangerous  of  crimes. 
It  undermines  the  very  foundation  of  government  by  the  people. 
And  yet  it  has  been  in  this  and  all  other  large  American  cities 
the  most  common  of  crimes.  In  the  public  mind,  and  in  common 
speech,  any  person  or  firm  which  has  habitually  done  business 
with  our  city  government  has  been  held  to  have  on  himself  the 
burden  of  proof  that  he  was  innocent  of  bribery.  And  then  came 
the  riot  of  debauchery  under  the  Schmitz  administration,  with 
corruption  in  all  forms  permeating  every  department  of  the  city 
government.  We  have  had  nothing  like  that  before,  and  yet 
until  the  election  of  the  present  Board  of  Supervisors  this  city 
has  almost  never  had  a  Board  on  v/hich  some  members  were  not 
believed  to  be  corrupt  and  constantly  on  the  watch  for  oppor- 
tunities to  'hold  up'  those  seeking  to  do  business  with  the  city. 
It  is  not  believed  that  any  franchise  now  in  existence  has  been 
obtained  without  bribery  or  operated  without  continuous  bribery. 
It  has  been  generally  assumed  that  whoever  undertook  to  do  busi- 
ness with  the  city  must  buy  his  way  in  by  some  form  of  cor- 
ruption. 

"Bribery  is  a  crime  for  w^hich  conviction  is  almost  impossible. 
Occasionally  pro»f  can  be  got  through  a  decoy,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  Schmitz  Supervisors.  What  was  exposed  in  that  way,  how- 
ever, was  no  legal  proof  against  the  higher  officials  of  the  bene- 
ficiary corporations.  For  that  other  proof  must  be  had,  and  thus 
far,  except  in  one  case,  no  conviction  has  been  had.  And  unless 
the  courts  reverse  themselves  that  conviction  will  not  stand.  The 
question  then  arises  as  to  the  duty  of  the  city.  Shall  we  continue 
to  expend  energy  in  striving  to  accomplish  what  we  all  see  to  be 
impossible,  or  shall  the  city,  having  done  its  best,  turn  its  energies 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     419 

Apparently  all  but  one  of  them  were  for  McCarthy  and 
Heney.  The  exception  was  for  Leland  and  Heney.  He 
was  defending  himself,  when  the  writer  joined  the 
group,  against  the  charge  that  in  voting  for  Leland  he 
was  "voting  outside  his  class." 

This  Leland  advocate  was  a  most  noticeable  young 
man.  He  declared  himself  to  be  a  member  of  the  elec- 
tricians' union.  Well  under  thirty,  clear-eyed  and  force- 
ful, he  was  prepared  to  stand  his  ground.  When  his 
immediate  opponent  became  personal,  the  electrical 
worker,  without  raising  his  voice,  without  excitement,  or 
boast,  or  display,  remarked  quietly :     "Do  not  resort  to 


Into  more  hopeful  channels?  As  to  that  there  will  be  differences  of 
opinion,  nor  is  it  possible  for  anyone  to  know  to  what  extent  those 
differences  are  founded  in  reason,  and  how  much  on  personal 
hatreds   and   a   desire  for   notoriety. 

"There  is  doubtless  a  feeling-  that  the  continuance  of  these 
prosecutions  is  now  doing-  great  harm,  which  could  only  be 
counterbalanced  by  conviction  based  on  clear  legal  proof,  for  which 
it  is  impossible  to  hope.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  enormously 
costly  and  has  introduced  a  universal  system  of  spying  which  is 
exciting  animosity  against  both  sides  of  these  cases.  Decent  citi- 
zens are  coming  to  resent  secret  efforts  to  induce  them  to  com- 
promise themselves  on  the  one  side  or  the  other.  Secondly,  the 
awful  exhibitions  of  perjury  in  order  to  escape  jury  duty  are 
shocking  the  moral  sense  of  the  community  as  severely  as  it  was 
shocked  by  the  exposure  of  the  bribery.  And  the  examination  of 
the  jurors  are  resulting  in  expressions  of  opinion  by  prospective 
jurors  which  do  not  do  the  city  any  good.  Finally,  the  conduct 
of  these  trials  is  turning  into  a  farce  processes  which  should  be 
the  most  solemn  exhibitions  of  the  authority  of  the  law.  "We  must 
all  recognize  that  it  is  common  talk  that  society  ought  not  to 
seek  to  imprison  one  possible  criminal  at  the  cost  of  the  impris- 
onment for  months  at  a  time  of  innocent  citizens  dragged  from 
their  homes  and  compelled  to  listen  to  the  interminable  quarrels 
of  counsel  over  matters  having  no  legitimate  bearing  on  the  case 
and  injected  solely  for  the  purpose  of  confusing  jurymen.  Every- 
body sees  that  it  will  be  impossible  in  the  case  now  on  trial  to 
get  a  jurv  fit  to  b^-  intrusted  v/ith  the  fate  of  a  dog.  Every  in- 
telligent citizen  has  been  'disqualified'  by  reading  the  testimony 
before   the   Grand    Jury. 

"It  is  a  most  difficult  situation.  No  reputable  citizen  is  will- 
ing to  seem  to  impede  the  course  of  justice.  But,  now  that  an 
organized  bodv  has  formally  raised  before  the  Supervisors  a 
question  whi^h  has  long  been  a  daily  subject  of  discussion  when- 
ever two  men  have  met,  it  will  be  necessary  to  frankly  face  the 
situation   and  decide  where   duty  lies." 


420     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

personalities,  for  if  it  comes  to  personalities,  what  chance 
have  you  against  me?" 

There  were  no  more  personalities. 

Incidentally  his  argument  was  fast  bringing  out  the 
fact  that  every  worker  in  the  crowd  was  going  to  vote 
for  Heney.  The  effect  of  it  was  important.  Suddenly 
from  somewhere  there  appeared  a  new  man  to  do  his 
part  in  molding  public  opinion. 

The  new-comer  went  through  that  crowd  with  the 
assurance  of  a  practiced  football  player  through  an  ag- 
gregation of  amateurs.  In  less  than  five  minutes  he  had 
addressed  every  man  of  the  group.  But  he  had  none  of 
the  marks  of  a  worker,  and  nobody  thought  to  ask  for 
his  "card."  His  was  the  pasty  face  and  the  pudgy  neck 
and  the  soft,  unclean  hand  of  the  cadet.  His  argument 
was  curious  and  even  ridiculous,  but  it  was  most  effect- 
ive.    It  at  least  scattered  the  crowd. 

"Of  course  Calhoun  is  a  grafter,"  he  said  in  effect. 
"They  are  all  grafters.  Spreckels  is  a  grafter.  Of 
course,  Fickert  is  Calhoun's  man,  just  as  Heney  is 
Spreckels's  man.  They  are  all  out  for  graft.  But  if  we 
are  to  have  grafting,  let's  keep  the  graft  in  our  own 
class.  Why  should  you  vote  to  let  Spreckels's  men  do 
the  grafting?  You  have  a  candidate  of  your  own.  Vote 
for  him.  It  is  only  a  fight  between  millionaires  any- 
how, and  a  toss-up  which  is  right.  Let  us  vote  for  the 
man  of  our  class." 

The  effect  of  this  running  fire  of  words  was  imme- 
diate. The  electrician  lost  the  attention  of  his  associates. 
The  discussion  came  to  an  end  with  murmurs  of  ap- 
proval of  the  newcomer's  position.     That  he  should  have 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     421 

changed  a  vote  with  such  argument  seems  incredible. 
But  that  he  had  created  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  those 
workingmen  was  apparent  to  all  who  saw.  He  left  them 
well  prepared  for  the  anti-jirosecution  workers  who 
would  meet  them  at  the  polls  the  next  morning. 

But  the  laboring  element  was  not  the  only  "class" 
forced  into  opposition  to  Heney.  At  the  exclusive  clubs, 
fashionable  hotels,  social  functions,  support  of  Heney 
was  denounced  as  treason  to  the  exclusive,  fashionable, 
social  class.  It  was  quite  amusing  to  hear  first  genera- 
tion descendants  of  honest  steerage  immigrants  decrying 
the  prosecution  of  rich  men  trapped  in  bribe-giving  on 
the  theory  that  to  do  otherwise  "would  be  treason  to 
our  class." 

Thus,  Mr.  Heney  was  called  upon  to  meet  the  "class" 
opposition  of  the  laborer  and  the  magnate.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  unafraid,  intelligent  people  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, who  recognized  no  "class"  issue,  rallied  to  Heney's 
support.  But  they  were  without  the  concerted  plan  of 
action  which  the  other  side  had  perfected.  The  San 
Francisco  press,  with  the  exception  of  The  Bulletin  and 
Daily  News,  gave  Heney  no  editorial  support,  but  the 
country  press,  which  had  no  circulation  in  San  Fran- 
cisco, earnestly  urged  his  election. ^^'^ 


4r.5  The  following  from  the  Fresno  Republican  is  vrvy  son,]  ex- 
ample of  thi.s  excellent  but   unavailing  news^paper  support: 

"Good  people  of  San  Francisco,  give  heed  and  take  notice,  the 
way  it  looks  in   the   clearer  perspective  of  an  outside  view. 

"Francis  J.  Heney  is  a  candidate  for  District  Attorney,  and  he 
is  the  issue.  It  is  stop  the  Graft  Prosecutions,  or  go  on  with  them. 
Your   votes   will   determine   it. 

"You  are  'tired  of  the  Graft  Prosecutions.'  How  long  did  it 
take  you  to  get  tired  of  the  graft?  Can  you  not  be  patient  as 
long  with   militant   honesty  as   you  were  with   sneaking  crime? 

"You  may  stop  these  Prosecutions,  if  you  so  vote.  But  re- 
member   the  ■'vfhole    civilized    world    is    looking    on,    and    will    judge 


422     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

Good  citizens  throughout  the  country  wrote  urging 
Heney's  election.  "To  rout  the  forces  of  the  prosecu- 
tion at  this  juncture  in  San  Francisco,"  wrote  Rabbi 
Stephen  S.  Wise  of  New  York,  "is  to  hoist  the  red  flag 
of  anarchy,  to  proclaim  that  law  and  order  are  not  al- 
ways enforceable,  or  that  such  enforcement  is  not  always 
profitable." 

But  Rabbi  Wise  was  in  New  York.  His  influence 
did  not,  unfortunately,  extend,  in  any  important  degree, 
to  San  Francisco. 

On  the  day  of  election,  the  writer  visited  many  vot- 
ing places  in  the  districts  in  which  the  labor  vote  was 

you  by  that  vote.     It  is  the  good  name  of  San  Francisco  that  you 
are  voting  up  or  down. 

"Banker  Hellman  says  not.  He  has  been  to  New  York  and  he 
says  'New  York'  wants  the  Prosecutions  stopped,  and  'New  York' 
will  not  lend  any  more  money  until  they  are  stopped. 

"What  is  Banker  Hellman's  'New  York?'  It  is  certain  banks 
and  certain  syndicates  in  New  York.  And  it  is  the  San  Francisco 
officials  of  precisely  these  syndicates  that  you  are  now  prosecu- 
ting. Of  course,  Patrick  Calhoun,  of  New  York,  wants  the  prose- 
cution of  Patrick  Calhoun  of  San  Francisco  stopped.  It  is  Banker 
Hellman's  privilege  to  have  a  mere  pendulum  which  swings  from 
his  San  Francisco  office  to  his  New  York  office  and  thinks  it  is  in 
New  York.  But  it  is  not  incumbent  on  you  to  share  that  mental 
deficiency.  If  Bankej-  Hellman  should  announce  in  New  York 
that  he  was  going  to  discuss  the  San  Francisco  situation,  his  audi- 
ence would  consist  of  the  New  York  partners  of  the  San  Francisco 
grafters.  He  thinks  that  is  'New  York.'  The  real  New  York 
would  neither  know  nor  care.  It  never  heard  of  Banker  Hellman. 
But  if  Francis  J.  Heney  should  be  announced  to  discuss  the  San 
Francisco  situation  in  New  York,  there  is  not  a  place  of  assem- 
blage in  the  city  big  enough  to  hold  the  people  who  would  want  to 
hear  and  see  him.  The  whole  nation  knows  Heney  and  it  has 
made  up  its  mind  al)out  him.  It  is  waiting  to  see  what  you  do, 
before   it  makes   up   its   mind   about  you,   too. 

"  'The  prosecutions  must  stop,  some  time,'  to  be  sure.  But 
who  has  earned  from  San  Francisco  the  right  to  say  when?  When 
Francis  J.  Heney  says  it  is  time  to  quit,  then  it  is  time;  not  be- 
fore. He  has  given  his  time,  his  strength,  and  almost  his  life  for 
you.  He  has  purified  your  politics  and  regulated  your  government. 
He  has  redeemed  your  city's  name  in  the  esteem  of  the  world. 
He  is  making  for  you  a  fight  which  no  one  ever  had  the  courage, 
the  persistence  or  the  ability  to  make  before.  He  is  not  tired  yet 
and  he  has  not  surrendered  yet.  Suppose  you  leave  it  to  him, 
when  it  is  time  to  quit. 

"People  of  San  Francisco,  the  world  is  looking  on.  It  cannot 
determine  your  decision.  Neither  can  you  determine  what  it  will 
think  of  that  decision,  when  it  is  made." 


The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909     423 

strong.  Working  men  by  the  scores  were  taking  less 
than  a  minute  to  mark  their  ballots.  It  was  evident  that 
they  were  voting  by  means  of  the  party  circle.  Every 
Labor  Union  party  vote  of  this  kind  was  a  vote  against 
Heney.  The  last  hope  that  Heney  would  get  this  sup- 
port was  gone.  One  did  not  need  wait  for  the  counting 
of  the  ballots.     It  was  plain  that  Heney  was  defeated. 

The  election  returns  spoke  eloquently  of  the  means 
that  had  been  employed  to  defeat  Heney.  For  the  pri- 
mary election  47,945  had  registered  as  Republicans,  but 
Crocker,  the  Republican  candidate  for  Mayor,  received 
only  IZ,766  votes  at  the  final  election.  Although  but 
10,546  had  registered  for  the  primaries  as  members  of 
the  Union  Labor  party,  P.  H.  McCarthy  received  29,455 
votes,  which,  wherever  voting  was  done  by  means  of 
the  party  circle,  carried  a  vote  for  Fickert. 

Fickert,  with  the  two  nominations,  received  36,192. 
Heney,  running  on  the  Democratic  ticket,  received  26,075 
votes,  6481  more  than  Leland,  the  candidate  for  Mayor. 
But  the  combination  against  Heney  was  too  great  for 
him  or  any  man  to  overcome.     Fickert  was  elected.*''*' 

The  Graft  Prosecution  had  been  defeated  at  the  polls. 


45G  Heney  on  the  day  after  the  election  issued  the  following 
statement: 

"The  first  battle  for  equality  before  tlie  law  has  been  fought 
and  lost,  but  the  war  against  graft  will  continue  to  be  waged  by 
all  true  soldiers  who  have  been  fighting  with  me  in  the  great 
cause  of  common  honesty,  common  decency,  and  civic  righteous- 
ness. 

"The  fight  between  the  forces  of  evil  and  the  forces  of  good  is 
and  must  be  a  perpetual  one.  The  first  battle  of  Bull  Run  cast 
gloom  over  the  entire  earth,  but  that  disaster  only  inspired  the 
immortal  Lincoln  and  his  followers  with  stern  resolution  and  fresh 
courage. 

"San  Francisco  has  received  a  sad  blow  and  the  cause  of  equal- 
ity before  the  law  a  great  setback,  but  be  of  good  cheer  and  take 
fresh  courage,  you  many  thousands  of  good  men  and  women  who 
have   joined    in    this    fight   for    the    maintenance    of    the   purity   and 


424     The  San  Francisco  Election  of  1909 

protection  of  our  homes  and  the  uplifting  of  the  moral  standards 
of  our  city! 

"We  have  been  defeated  in  this  election,  but  the  sober  moral 
sense  of  the  community  will  again  reassert  itself  and  San  Fran- 
cisco  will   vindicate   herself   before   the   world. 

"I  retract  nothing  that  I  have  said  during  the  recent  campaign. 
On  the  contrary,  I  reassert  the  truth  of  all  that  I  have  stated  from 
the  public  platforms.  I  have  no  regrets  except  that  for  poor  San 
Francisco  and  the  many  thousands  of  people  who  fought  shoulder 
to  shoulder  with  me  in  the  good  fight. 

"Let  us  all  to-night  firmly  resolve  that  we  will  continue  the 
battle  for  equality  before  the  law  with  unabated  vigor  until  suc- 
cess has  crowned  our  efforts." 


The   following  statement   was   issued   by  Rudolph   Spreckels: 

"While  the  defeat  at  yesterday's  election  of  the  principles  for 
which  I  have  fought  is  regretted  by  me,  it  will  speedily  bring 
about  a   truer  estimate  of  my  real   motives. 

"One  of  the  compensations  of  this  defeat  is  that  I  have  so 
quickly  been  given  an  opportunity  to  disprove  the  charges  so  fre- 
quently made  that  I  have  been  actuated  by  sordid  or  vindictive 
motives.  The  individuals  against  whom  it  is  alleged  that  I  have 
entertained  malicious  and  selfish  designs  are  entirely  removed 
from  the  possibility  of  harm  at  the  hands  of  the  so-called  Prose- 
cution. 

"Attempting  to  punish  was  an  unpleasant  and  incidental  por- 
tion of  the  public  work  which  I  set  out  to  do.  I  am  glad  that  the 
people  have  taken  that  task  off  my  hands  and  left  me  free  to  do 
the   more   important   part  of   my   undertaking. 

"Feeling  that  the  people  will  fully  realize  this,  I  desire  to  say 
that  I  shall  continue  the  work  of  civic  regeneration  with  undi- 
minished hope  and  earnestness." 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases. 

At  the  time  of  Mr.  Fickert's  election  to  the  District 
Attorney's  office,  the  second  trial  of  Patrick  Calhoun 
for  oflfering-  a  bribe  was  well  under  way.  As  at  the 
other  graft  trials,  there  had  been  delays  *^^  so  that  after 
five  months  the  jury  was  only  half  complete.  That  the 
trial  could  not  be  finished  before  Mr.  Fickert  assumed 
the  duties  of  his  office  became  evident.  The  case  was, 
for  that  reason,  on  December  9,  continued  until  January 
10,  in  order  that  Mr.  Fickert  might  participate  in  the 
selection  of  the  trial  jurors.  But  on  that  date,  Mr. 
Fickert,  who  had  been  in  office  only  two  days,  very 
frankly  admitted  himself  to  be  unfamiliar  with  the  facts, 
and  not  prepared  to  go  to  trial.  Further  continuance 
was  accordingly  granted  until  January  31,  and  then  until 
February  7. 

In  the  meantime  former  Supervisor  James  L.  Gal- 
lagher, the  pivotal  witness  in  the  case,  had  disappeared. 
Gallagher  was  known  to  have  been  in  San  Francisco  for 
some  three   weeks   after   Fickert's   election.     About   De- 


457  The  second  trial  of  Patrick  Calhoun  (No.  1437)  was  begun 
July  19,  1909.  Owing  to  the  illness  of  one  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  coun- 
sel," the  trial  was  suspended  on  August  Ifith,  and  resumed  Septem- 
ber 30th.  The  following  day  the  defendant  secured  further  con- 
tinuance until  November  15th,  upon  tlie  ground  of  the  pendency 
of  a  municipal  political  campaign.  After  the  election  the  trial  was 
resumed.  On  1 'ecemb<^r  0th,  it  was,  by  agreement  between  the 
parties  continued  until  January  :oth,  when  the  new  District  At- 
torney should   be  In  office. 


426 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 


cember  1  he  dropped  out  of  sight.     He  was  supposed 
to  have  gone  to  Europe.^" 

On  February  7,  Mr.  Fickert  moved  the  dismissal  of 
the  case  pending  against  Mr.  Calhoun  on  the  ground 
that  there  was  not  sufficient  legal  and  competent  evi- 
dence to  warrant  him  submitting  the  case  to  a  jury.*^^ 


458  The  motives  which  prompted  Gallagher  to  flee  the  city  are 
among  the  undetermined  elements  of  the  graft  cases.  Perhaps  rec- 
ollection of  his  attempted  assassination  had  something  to  do  with 
it.  It  may  be  that  the  defense,  which  had  done  so  many  extra- 
ordinary things  during  the  course  of  the  graft  trials,  made  it  worth 
his  while  to  go.  Gallagher  is  known  to  have  been  plentifully  sup- 
plied with  money  while  he  was  away.  An  attempt  was  made  to 
create  the  impression  that  agents  of  the  Prosecution  had  been  in- 
strumental in  getting  Gallagher  out  of  the  State.  But  the  attempt, 
while  it  confused  the  situation  somewhat,  was  not  taken  seriously. 
When  in  August,  1911,  Judge  Lawlor  dismissed  the  indictments 
against  the  alleged  bribe-givers  in  the  trolley  case,  he  took  occa- 
sion to  say:  "I  am  more  convinced  now  than  I  was  when  these 
same  motions  were  urged  more  than  a  year  ago,  that  James  L. 
Gallagher  is  remaining  out  of  this  jurisdiction  for  a  specific  pur- 
pose. The  future  will  make  that  point  entirely  clear.  When  his 
Importance  as  a  witness  in  any  of  these  so-called  graft  cases  has 
ceased  there  is  no  doubt  that  James  L.  Gallagher  will  be  again 
in  our  midst.  If  I  were  able  to  lay  the  responsibility  for  that  situ- 
ation upon  any  individual  or  set  of  individuals  I  repeat  that  ap- 
propriate proceedings  would  have  been  instituted  to  have  the  law 
redressed  in  that  behalf." 

Judge  Lawlor  was  right.  After  the  dismissal  of  the  graft  cases 
Mr.  Gallagher  returned  to  San  Francisco. 

To  the  intim.ation  of  District  Attorney  Fickert  that  Gallagher  left 
the  State  to  embarrass  the  District  Attorney's  administration.  Judge 
Lawlor  on  one  occasion  said  in  an  opinion:  "That  the  former  ad- 
ministration may  have  distrusted  the  official  intentions  of  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  toward  these  indictments  might  be  assumed  from 
all  the  surrounding  circumstances.  But  it  does  not  seem  probable 
that  the  former  administration  would  induce  a  material  and  indis- 
pensable witness  to  leave  the  State  and  thereby  make  it  easy  for 
the  District  Attorney  to  secure  a  result  which  otherwise  might 
entail  serious  embarassment.  So  far  as  the  showing  is  concerned 
there  is  no  tangible  proof  tending  to  support  the  charge  of  the 
District  Attorney,  nor  is  there  any  proof  which  would  justify  such 
an  inference." 

459  Fickert's  motion  had  been  prepared  in  advance  and  was  read 
to  the  court.  "Since  the  calling  of  this  case  on  January  10th,"  he 
said,  "I  have  made  a  thorough  and  careful  examination  of  the  evi- 
dence left  in  the  District  Attorney's  office  by  my  predecessor,  Mr. 
Langdon,  and  he  informed  me  on  my  accession  to  the  office,  that  h© 
had  delivered  to  me  all  the  evidence  of  every  kind  and  character 
in  his  possession  or  under  his  control  in  this  case.  I  have  also  ex- 
amined thft  transcript  of  testimony  given  at  the  former  trial  of  this 
defendant;  besides  this,  I  have  made  independent  search  for  further 
evidence.      These  exatninations  convince   me   that   there   is   not   suf- 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  427 

Judge  Lawlor  denied  the  motion.  In  denying  it, 
Judge  Lawlor  stated  that  in  the  view  of  the  court  the 
action  should  be  tried  by  a  jury  and  a  verdict  should 
be  rendered  by  a  jury,  if  that  were  possible,  in  the  full 
operation  of  the  law. 

Fickert  stated  in  the  discussion  which  followed  that 
he  wanted  his  motion  to  apply  to  all  the  other  graft 
cases  of  the  same  class  as  Calhoun's,  with  the  exception 
of  the  defendants  Ruef  and  Schmitz.  But  here  again 
did  the  Judge  deny  the  District  Attorney's  request. 

After  Judge  Lawlor's  ruling,  Calhoun's  attorneys 
announced  themselves  ready  to  proceed  with  the  trial 
of  the  case.  Fickert  stated  that  he  would  be  ready  in 
a  week.  Judge  Lawlor  thereupon  questioned  Fickert 
very  closely  about  the  absent  witness,  Gallagher.  Fick- 
ert gave  assurance  that  diligent  hunt  wa"^  being  made 
for  the  witness. 

The  questioning  of  the  District  Attorney  was  con- 
tinued ten  days  later  when  the  case  again  came  up. 
Judge  Lawlor  asked  Fickert  to  tell  definitely  whether 
he  proposed  to  put  the  issue  before  a  jury  in  the  absence 
of  his  material  witness. 

Fickert  replied  that  Gallagher's  absence  greatly  weak- 
ened the  State's  case,  and  that  in  his  belief  certain  facts 
could  not  be  proved  without  Gallagher  being  present. 
But  as  for  that,  Fickert  insisted  that  even  with  Gal- 
lagher present  he  did  not  believe  that  the  State  could 

ficient  legal  and  competent  evidence  to  justify  me,  as  a  sworn  officer 
of  the  law,  to  present  this  case  to  a  jury. 

"My  opinion  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  42  out  of  48  jurors 
sworn  to  try  this  defendant  and  the  defendant,  Tirey  L.  Ford,  upon 
the  same  state  of  facts,  voted  'Not  Guilty.'  I,  therefore,  'in  fur- 
therance of  justice,'  move  the  dismissal  of  this  indictment,  on  the 
grounds  that  the  evidence  is  wholly  Insufficient  to  warrant  an- 
other trial  of  this  case." 


428 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 


make  out  a  case.*^"  Nevertheless,  he  continued  to  insist 
that  he  was  ready  to  proceed  to  try  the  action  even  in 
the  absence  of  the  witness  Gallagher. 

But  Judge  Lawlor  announced  that  he  did  not  pro- 
pose to  proceed  with  the  trial  of  the  action : 

(1)  If  a  material  witness  were  without  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  court. 

(2)  If  the  court  did  not  believe  that  the  cause  were 
to  be  prosecuted  with  the  vigor  and  fidelity  that  the  law 
contemplates.**'^ 

460  Judge  Lawlor  was  also  careful  to  make  clear  that  if  the 
court  proceeded  with  the  formation  of  a  jury,  jeopardy  would  at- 
tach to  the  case.  He  also  pointed  out  that  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions had  run  ag'ainst  the  alleged  crimes.  The  following  is  from 
the  transcript,   the  questions  being  directed  to  Mr.  Fickert: 

"The  Court:  You  are  aware  that  if  you  proceed  to  form  a  jury 
to  try  this  issue,  and  the  witness  does  not  appear,  that  jeopardy 
has  nevertheless  attached  and  that  the  defendant  will  be  entitled 
to  ask  for  his  deliverance  at  the  hands  of  that  jury,  whether  that 
witness  is  produced  or  not. 

"Mr.  Fickert:     Yes,  I  am  aware  of  that,  if  your  Honor  please. 

"The  Court:  And  you  are  aware  further  that  the  alleged  crim- 
inal act  set  up  in  the  indictment  is  outlawed  within  the  meaning 
of  Section  800  of  the  Penal  Code;  that  is  to  say,  that  more  than 
three  years  have  intervened  since  it  is  claimed  that  that  act  was 
committed. 

"Mr.  Fickert:     That  is  correct,  if  your  Honor  please. 

"The  Court:  The  witness,  James  L.  Gallagher,  gave  testimony 
in  the  trial  of  c.se  1436  against  this  defendant.  You  are  aware 
that  the  testimony  relating  to  an  indictment  cannot  be  read  to  a  jury 
on  a  retrial  of  the  action;  in  other  words,  that  if  James  L.  Gallagher 
does  not  appear  in  this  trial  his  testimony  cannot  be  presented  to 
the  jury." 

Fickert  suggested  that  counsel  might  stipulate  that  the  evidence 
be  read.  But  counsel  for  Mr.  Calhoun  hastened  to  assure  Mr.  Fick- 
ert that  counsel  would  stipulate  to  nothing  of  the  kind. 

401  "At  the  present  time,"  said  Judge  Lawlor  in  making  this 
announcement,  "it  is  the  intention  of  the  Court  to  deal  with  this 
matter,  so  far  as  the  absence  of  that  material  witness  is  con- 
cerned, and  to  suspend  judgment  as  to  the  ultimate  attitude  of  the 
District  Attorney  in  respect  to  this  and  other  causes  before  the 
Court.  I  do  not  intend  to  sit  here  and  preside  over  a  trial  if  for 
any  reason,  whether  it  seems  sufficient  to  the  District  Attorney 
or  not,  the  Court  reaches  the  conclusion  that  the  case  is  not  being 
prosecuted  in  good  faith.  The  Court,  in  pointing  out  the  duty  of 
the  District  Attorney  on  February  7th.  was  not  inviting  a  sugges- 
tion that  we  should  proceed  to  trial  without  regard  to  the  outcome 
of  that  trial  or  to  its  particular  features  or  the  manner  in  which  it 
should  be  tried.  The  Court  will  try  no  case,  it  will  not  consume 
its   own    time,    it  will   not   consume    the    time  of  others,    it  will   not 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  429 

Fickert  also  stated  his  position.  He  insisted  that  he 
did  not  believe  that  any  evidence  had  ever  existed 
against  the  trolley-graft  defendants  Abbott  and  Mullally, 
and  did  not  believe  it  to  be  his  duty  as  District  Attorney 
to  prosecute  men  against  whom  there  was  no  evidence. 
Fickert  even  attempted  to  commit  Judge  Lawlor  to  this 
proposition,  by  stating  that  the  Judge  in  chambers  had 
confessed  as  much.  This  Judge  Lawlor  denied.  Mr. 
Fickert's  assistant,  i\Ir.  Berry,  had  been  present  during 
the   discussion    in    chambers    between    Mr.    Fickert    and 


allow  the  expenditure  of  public  money  for  the  mere  purpose  of  go- 
ing through  the  forms  of  a  trial.  The  Court  must  feel  in  the  end 
that  the  people  are  represented.  Now,  what  its  final  view  shall  be 
as  to  the  District  Attorney  will  be  announced  when  the  Court  deems 
that  anouncement  pertinent  and  proper.  The  Court  has  its  own 
views  as  to  what  may  be  done  within  the  exercise  of  its  prerogative 
in  the  event  that  it  does  not  feel  that  the  people  are  represented, 
and  will  act  upon  its  own  judgment  when  that  time  arrives.  At 
this  time  the  witness  being  absent  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Court,  the  Court  points  out  to  the  District  Attorney  his  duty  under 
Section  1052  of  the  Penal  Code,  to  move  for  a  proper  continuance 
of  this  action  until  the  Court  can  be  advised  as  to  whether  or  not 
that  witness  can  be  produced." 

Later,  when  Fickert  suggested  that  all  criminal  causes  be  trans- 
ferred to  some  other  department  where  the  judge  might  be  of  a 
different  opinion.   Judge  Lawlor  said: 

"I  have  had  no  occasion  to  find  fault  with  your  acts  in  respect 
to  any  other  causes  that  have  been  brought  before  this  Court.  I 
am  endeavoring  to  have  your  mind  concentrated  upon  one  thing, 
and  that  is  the  matters  which  are  before  tliis  Court,  and  for  the 
prosecution  of  which  you,  under  your  sworn  oath  of  office  are  re- 
quired to  give  your  full  attention  to.  Your  own  statement  in  sup- 
port of  your  motion  to  dismiss  this  case  evinces  in  my  judgment 
a  disposition  not  to  do  your  duty.  However,  I  still  say  that  this 
matter  I  bring  to  your  attention,  and  ask  you  to  give  full  reflection 
uijon  the  matter.  I  have  no  desire  in  any  manner  to  hamper  you. 
The  process  of  this  Court  is  at  your  disposal  at  all  times,  in  all 
causes,  and  if  any  person  or  set  of  persons  be  found  to  be  inter- 
fering with  the  due  administration  of  Justice  you  will  have  a  full 
hearing  before  this  Court  in  order  that  you  shall  not  be  so  ham- 
pered. Your  statement  concerning  these  cases  is  calculated  not 
alone  to  affect  the  fortune  of  these  undetermined  cases,  but  it  Is 
well  calculated  to  affect  the  disposition  of  the  other  causes  and 
other  charges  wherein  convictions  were  had  against  other  persons 
growing  out  of  this  alleged  transaction,  and  which  cases  are  now 
on  their  way  for  a  determination  to  the  courts  of  appeal  in  this 
State." 


430  Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 

Judge  Lawlor,  but  Mr.  Berry  failed  to  sustain  his  chief's 
contention.***^ 

"In  these  cases,  the  cases  against  Mr.  Abbott  and 
Mr.  Mullally,"  said  Fickert,  "I  shall  never  proceed  in 
them  because  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  which  at 
all  gives  even  a  suspicion." 

In  respect  to  the  other  cases,  Mr.  Fickert  announced 
that  he  intended  to  take  the  same  course  that  he  had 
in  those  under  discussion,  and  stated  that  if  the  Judge 
so  desired  he  would  advise  him  before  hand  as  to  which 
of  the  cases  he  intended  to  make  a  motion  for  dismissal. 

"In  view  of  the  statement  you  made  on  February 
7,"  **'^  replied  Judge  Lawlor,  "the  Court  will  not  feel 
called  upon  to  grant  any  application  looking  to  a  dis- 
missal of  any  of  those  cases.  The  Court  will  finally 
deal  with  them  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  law. 
And  if  that  situation  is  not  reached  so  that  the  Court 
can  proceed  with  the  trial,  the  Court  will  be  under  the 

462  "I  think  your  Honor  well  knows,"  Fickert  had  said,  "that 
certain  defendants  in  this  particular  class  of  cases,  that  there  have 
not  been  produced  here  in  Court,  and  I  do  not  think  ever  ex- 
isted, any  evidence  against  them.  I  allude  to  Mr.  Abbott  and  Mr. 
Mullally.  And  I  so  informed  you  in  your  chambers,  and  you  in 
words   confessed   that   pi-opositlon." 

Judge  Lawlor  took  this  statement  up.  The  following  is  from  the 
transcript: 

"The  Court:  Now,  before  you  pass  to  those  other  cases,  In  re- 
gard to  these  two  cases  do  you  make  the  statement  that  1  made 
any  statement  to  you,  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Berry,  that  I  said 
there  was  not  sufflcient  evidence? 

"Mr.  Fickert:     I  so  informed  you,  and  you,  in  effect,  so  stated. 

"The  Court:     Did  you  so  understand  it,   Mr.   Berry? 

"Mr.  Fickert:     That  there  was  no  evidence  against  those  men? 

"Mr.  Berry:  I  remember  Mr.  Fickert  saying  he  did  not  consider 
there  was  any  evidence  against  those  men,  but  I  do  not  remember 
the  Court's  reply:     I  do  not  remember  that  the  Court  did  reply. 

"The  Court:  I  did  not.  It  is  not  the  province  of  the  Court  to 
pass  upon  the  facts  in  a  criminal  case.  The  facts  are  placed  before 
a  jury,   and  the  jury  pass  on  the  facts. 

"Mr.  Fickert:     I  am  certainly  not  mistaken  in  that  matter. 

"The  Court:  You  are  certainly  mistaken  in  that  matter;  I  was 
careful  not  to  make  any  such  statement." 

46.3  See  footnote   459,   page   426. 


Di-smissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  431 

solemn  obligation  of  setting  down  in  its  minutes  the 
reason  why  a  trial  has  not  been  had  in  any  particular 
instance,  and  why  cases  are  dismissed  or  disposed  of 
without  the  trial  of  the  general  issue.  The  Court  cannot 
escape  its  responsibilities.  I  have  pointed  out  that  under 
the  law  it  is  for  the  Court  to  say  finally  what  shall 
become  of  cases  that  are  not  pressed  to  conclusion,  and 
when  the  Court  does  that  it  must  give  its  reasons — the 
law  says  so.  In  this  State,  since  the  formation  of  the 
government  therein,  the  power  has  not  for  any  consid- 
erable length  of  time  lodged  in  the  District  Attorney  to 
dispose  of  actions ;  that  matter  is  confided  to  the  Court. 
Counsel  will  be  doing  injustice  to  his  own  position  if 
he  assumes  that  the  Court  has  any  other  attitude  than 
to  finally  dispose  of  these  matters  according  to  the  law 
without  doing  injustice  to  any  person,  either  to  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney  or  any  person  who  is  unfortunate  enough 
to  be  involved.  But  when  the  Court  comes  to  write 
down  its  action  it  will  be  based  upon  what  it  believes  to 
be  the  fact  and  upon  nothing  else." 

Fickert  replied  that  he  was  ready  to  proceed  with 
the  matter.  To  this  Judge  Lawlor  reiterated  that  the 
Court  v/as  not  going  to  permit  the  District  Attorney  to 
I)roceed  in  the  absence  of  a  witness,  who,  according  to 
the  District  Attornev's  own  statement,  was  material.**'* 


464  "In  dealing  with  the  attitude  of  the  District  Attorney,"  said 
Judge  Lawlor,  "as  is  manifested  by  all  that  I  have  said  upon  that 
subject,  I  have  endeavored  to  deal  justly  with  him.  to  reach  no  con- 
clusion myself  definitely  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  District  Attorney. 
I  sincerely  hope  that  in  these  cases,  as  in  all  cases  that  may  come 
before  the  Court,  the  District  Attorney  will  do  his  full  duty.  I  de- 
sire it  equally  understood,  however,  that  if  the  District  Attorney 
in  any  case  fails  of  his  duty  the  Court  is  not  going-  to  be  recreant 
and  it  is  not  going  to  sit  here  as  a  minister  of  justice  and  permit 
a  travesty  in  any  form,  for  any  purpose,  whatever  the  views  of  the 
District  Attorney    may   be.     Now,    I   have   endeavored   to   make    It 


432  Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 

Nor  did  the  earnest  plea  of  attorneys  for  the  defense 
for  dismissal  move  Judge  Lawlor.  In  the  absence  of 
the  material  witness,  Gallagher,  he  continued  the  case, 
on  the  Court's  own  motion,  until  April  25.**^^ 

On  that  date,  Calhoun's  attorneys  moved  for  dis- 
missal of  all  the  indictments  pending  against  their  client 
upon  the  ground  that  his  trial  had  been  postponed  and 
continued  for  more  than  sixty  days  without  his  consent 
and  over  his  objection  and  exception. 

Fickert  submitted  the  motion,  fortifying  it  with  a 
statement  that  he  did  not  believe  that  the  District  Attor- 
ney's office  would  be  justified  in  asking  continuance  until 
Gallagher's  return. 

Judge  Lawlor  postponed  determination  of  the  motion 


clear  that  there  are  two  considerations  that  will  affect  the  Court 
in  the  final  disposition  of  this  business:  First,  that  it  will  not  pro- 
ceed with  the  trial  of  any  action  where  material  testimony  is  not 
forthcoming.  That  would  be  the  disposition  of  the  Court  in  any 
case,  but  it  is  especially  its  attitude  in  this  case  in  view  of  the 
sweeping  statement  of  the  District  Attorney  made  on  February  7th 
that  there  is  no  sufficient  evidence  upon  which  to  proceed  to  trial 
against  any  of  these  four  defendants." 

465  The  statement  was  made  repeatedly  that  Gallagher  was  not 
under  subpoena  when  he  left  the  State.  The  statement  was  even 
contained  in  the  opinion  of  the  Appellate  Court,  granting  the  writ 
of  mandate  that  preceded  the  dismissal  of  the  graft  cases.  Judge 
Lawlor  at  the  proceedings  when  the  cases  were  finally  dismissed, 
touched   upon   this   feature   as  follows: 

"The  Court:  The  statement  has  been  made  in  the  opinion  that 
I  am  not  able  to  account  for  its  appearance  in  the  showing.  This 
statement  was  made  that  no  service  had  been  made  upon  James 
L.  Gallagher  or  that  he  was  not  under  the  order  of  the  Court.  That 
is  a  proposition  of  fact  which  has  never  been  resolved  by  this  Court 
and  I  am  unable  to  determine  how  it  could  be  determined  else- 
where, how  it  could  be  declared  elsewhere,  in  the  absence  of  such 
testimony  as  I  might  be  able  to  give  on  the  subject.  I  expressly 
refrained,  on  an  occasion  when  I  made  an  extended  statement  cov- 
ering these  cases,  from  making  any  final  word  on  that  subject.  I 
am  not  prepared  now  to  say  so,  because  I  don't  know. 

"Mr.  Berry:  I  will  state  to  the  Court  that  I  have  made  a  very 
careful  inquiry  in  the  District  Attorney's  office,  and  of  the  records, 
and  of  the  officials  in  that  office  in  the  previous  administration,  and 
I  have  been  unable  to  secure  or  to  get  any  definite  information  on 
that  point." 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  433 

until    July    14.'*"^      His    ruling   was    announced    on    Au- 
gust 3. 

Judge   Lawlor    went   exhaustively   into  the   situation 


•I'lo  Judge  Lawlor,  in  announcing  this  decision,  said  in  part:  "Sec- 
tion 13  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitution  provides  in  part:  'In  crim- 
inal prosecutions  in  any  court  whatever  the  party  accused  shall 
have  the  right  to  a  speedy  and  public  trial.  *  *  *.'  Section  1382 
of  the  Penal  Code  declares  in  part:  'The  court,  unless  good  cause 
to  the  contrary  is  shown,  must  order  the  prosecution  to  be  dis- 
missed in  the  following  cases:  •  *  *.  2.  If  a  defendant,  whose 
trial  has  not  been  postponed  upon  his  application,  is  not  brought 
to  trial  within  sixty  days  after  the  finding  of  the  indictment,  or 
filing  of  the  information.' 

"This  provision  has  repeatedly  been  declared  to  be  a  statutory 
expression  with  reference  to  the  section  of  the  constitution  to  which 
the  Court  has  referred.  It  has  been  held  to  mark  the  period  within 
which  a  party  accused  of  crime  is  to  be  brought  to  trial,  unless 
good  cause  to  the  contrary  is  shown.  About  the  general  proposition 
of  law  involved  in  the  determination  of  the  present  motion  there 
can  be  little  ground  for  contention.  The  perplexity  usually  arises 
In  the  determination  of  what  the  reserve  language  of  Subdivision 
2  of  Section  1382  of  the  Penal  Code  may  be  included  to  cover.  An 
application  of  this  character  must  be  determined  according  to  the 
peculiar    circumstances     surrounding    the    application."     ♦     *     • 

"The  Court  is  of  the  view  that  so  far  as  the  determination  of 
the  motion  itself  is  concerned  the  onus  is  on  the  People  to  show 
good  cause,  which  would  take  the  case  out  of  the  operation  of  the 
constitutional  provision  and  the  statute  referred  to.  The  Court,  in 
that  view  of  the  matter,  has  addressed  the  District  Attorney  as  to 
what  his  attitude  is  with  respect  to  the  motion,  and  the  District 
Attorney  has  made  it  plain  that  it  is  not  his  intention  to  take  any 
step  toward  meeting  the  application  of  the  defendant  to  have  the 
causes  dismissed.  In  the  view  which  the  Court  takes  of  the  gen- 
eral attitude  of  the  District  Attorney  toward  the  four  defendants 
at  bar,  the  Court  feels  it  is  a  case  where  it  must  act,  and  to  the 
extent  thiat  it  may  be  needed,  to  protect  the  public  interests.  The 
Court  has  judicial  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  charges  against 
these  four  defendants.  It  knows  judicially  that  a  material,  and.  It 
is  claimed,  an  indispensable  witness  to  the  prosecution  of  these 
charges  is  without  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State.  It  is  not  prepared, 
on  any  evidence  before  it,  to  charge  the  responsibility  of  the  absence 
of  that  witness  either  to  the  former  administration  or  to  the  pres- 
ent administration  in  the  District  Attorney's  office.  The  fact,  how- 
ever, that  the  witness  is  absent  from  the  State  and  not  within 
reach  of  the  process  of  the  Court,  is  a  fact  established  before  the 
Court  at  this  time. 

"It  is  not  the  intention  of  the  Court  to  disregard  the  rights  of 
this  or  any  other  defendant,  that  may  be  urged  before  this  Court, 
but,  it  is  likewise  the  disposition  of  the  Court,  to  see  that  the  pub- 
lic interests  are  safeguarded,  and  that  no  arrangement  between  the 
defendants  and  the  sworn  officer  of  the  law  shall  be  suffered  to 
direct  and  control  the  action  of  this  Court.  And  in  that  view  of 
the  matter  the  Court  has  reached  the  conclusion  that  it  is  its  duty 
to  continue  these  causes  further,  in  order  to  see  whether  or  not 
the  missing  witness  can  be  secured,  and  if  he  cannot  be  secured 
within  such  time  as  this  Court  may  deem  to  be  proper  and  which 
would  take  the  case  out  of  the  exception  contained  in  the  provision 


434  Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 

presented.***^  He  pointed  out  that  a  material  and  in- 
dispensable witness  was  absent  from  the  State ;  he 
stated  that  the  Court  was  called  upon  to  intervene  "be- 
cause the  District  Attorney  has  at  practically  every  turn 
followed  the  lead  of  these  defendants" ;  he  held  that 
through  the  influence  of  unusual  agencies,  so  far  as  the 
graft  cases  were  concerned,  the  law  had  broken  down, 
and  that  the  crimes  charged  are  of  the  most  serious 
nature,  "because  such  criminal  activity  tends  to  sap  the 
very  foundations  of  government" ;  he  insisted  that  be- 
fore the  indictments  should  be  finally  disposed  of  every 
reasonable  effort  should  be  made  to  get  at  the  truth  of 
the  situation. 

"The  disposition  of  grave  charges  other  than  on 
their  merits,"  he  concluded,  "is  not  to  be  encouraged 
and  should  not  be  allowed,  except  in  the  face  of  a  strict 
legal  necessity."  He  continued  the  cases  until  Au- 
gust 29. 

Stanley  Moore,  one  of  Calhoun's  attorneys,  when 
Judge  Lawlor  had  concluded,  demanded  that  he  be  per- 
mitted to  reply.     This  demand  was  refused. 

There  follovv^ed  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  scenes 
ever  recorded  of  a  court  of  justice.  The  defendant's 
attorneys,  the  District  Attorney,  and  even  the  prisoner 
at  bar,  openly  and  contemptuously  defied  the  Judge  on 
the  bench. 

Stanley    Moore    charged    him    with    "doing    politics 

of  the  statute,  and  the  constitutional  provision,  then  to  deal  with 
this  motion. 

"It  is  therefore  ordered  that  the  determination  of  the  pending 
motion  in  the  causes  against  the  four  defendants  named  he  con- 
tinued for  further  hearing  until  10  a.  m.,  Thursday,  July  14,  1910." 

467  Judge  Lawlor's  decision  will  be  found  in  full  in  the  Appendix, 
page  i. 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  435 

from  the  bench  that  you  stultify  in  your  occupancy." 
A.  A.  Moore,  another  of  Calhoun's  lawyers,  accused 
him  of  being  "a  partisan,  a  bitter  partisan,  and  doing- 
dirty  politics." 

"And,"  Stanley  Moore  hastened  to  add,  "have  been 
before  these  indictments  were  ever  filed  in  this  court, 
as  the  events  of  that  midnight  deal  in  which  you  par- 
ticipated on  April  29  amply  demonstrate."  ^^^ 

District  Attorney  Fickert,  in  the  face  of  the  Court's 
direction  that  he  take  his  seat,  denounced  "the  state- 
ments and  aspersions  you  have  tried  to  cast  upon  me" 
as  "false  in  each  and  every  particular." 

A  third  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  attorneys  added  his  de- 
nunciation. Mr.  John  Barrett  decried  the  proceedings 
as   "infamous." 

Judge  Lawlor  sentenced  Calhoun's  three  attorneys 
to  serve  five  days  each  in  the  county  jail  for  contempt 
and  ordered  the  SheriflF  to  take  charge  of  them. 

But  the  extraordinary  scene  was  not  concluded.  The 
prisoner  at  the  bar  had  not  yet  been  heard.  Calhoun 
took  the  floor  to  tell  the  Judge  on  the  bench  that  should 
the  Judge  send  him  (Calhoun)  to  jail  for  contempt  "it 
will  be  heralded  all  over  this  country  as   an  honor."  *'^^ 

408  See  Chapter  XV. 

469  Calhoun's  denunciation  of  Judge  Lawlor  was  as  follows: 
"Mr.  Calhoun:  May  it  please  your  Honor:  I  ha\'e  been  educated, 
sir,  to  have  respect  for  the  courts.  I  have  sat  in  your  court  under 
circumstances  that  would  have  tried  the  patience  of  any  American. 
Throughout  these  trials  I  have  sought,  sir,  to  give  you  under  most 
trying  circumstances  that  respect  to  which  your  office  entitles  you. 
But,  sir,  I  cannot  sit  quiet  and  listen  to  the  vile  insinuations  which 
you  yourself  have  stated  there  was  no  evidence  before  you  to 
justify.  There  have  been  periods,  sir,  when  the  greatest  honor 
that  could  come  to  a  man  was  to  gc  to  jail;  and  as  an  American 
citizen  I  say  to  you  that  if  you  should  send  me  for  contempt  it  will 
be  heralded  all  over  this  country  as  an  honor.  You  have  seen  fit, 
sir,   to  send  three  of  the  most  distinguished  counsel  of  this  State 


436 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 


The  Court  attempted  to  interrupt  the  angry  defendant. 
The  interruption  was  ignored.  The  prisoner  at  the  bar 
was  exhibiting  himself  as  more  powerful  in  San  Fran- 
cisco than  the  Judge  on  the  bench.  When  he  had  said 
his  say,  he  took  his  seat. 

The  trolley-graft  cases  dragged  along  for  more  than 
a  year  after  this  astonishing  scene  in  Judge  Lawlor's 
courtroom. ■''°  The  defendants  applied  to  the  Supreme 
Court  in  habeas  corpus  proceedings,  but  failed  to  secure 
interference.  They  then  went  to  the  State  District  Court 
of  Appeal,  where  they  secured  a  writ  of  mandate  di- 
recting Judge  Lawlor  to  dismiss  the  indictments  in  the 
cases  of  the  trolley-graft  defendants. *^^  The  District 
Attorney's  office  announced  to  Judge  Lawlor  that  the 
District  Attorney  had  no  intention  of  prosecuting  an 
appeal  from  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  District 
Court. 


to  jail.  Why?  Because  they  have  sought  to  express  in  terms  of 
respect,  and  yet  in  terms  of  strength,  their  protest  against  in- 
justice  

"The  Court:     Mr.   Calhoun 

"Mr.  Calhoun:  There  is  a  tiine — pardon  me,  your  Honor — when 
every  man  has  a  right  to  be  heard 

"The   Court:     Mr.    Calhoun 

"Mr.  Calhoun:  Now,  before  I  take  my  seat,  I  desire  further  to 
say  this,  that  any  insinuation  that  implies  either  that  I  was  a  party 
to  any  obstruction  of  justice,  or  that  I  was  a  party  to  the  absence 
of  this  witness,  or  that  I  have  sought  to  control  the  District  At- 
torney's office  of  this  city  is  untrue.  There  is  no  evidence  before 
this  Court.     You  yourself  know  it." 

4  70  Judge  Lawlor's  term  of  ofRce  expired  in  January,  1913.  At 
the  1912  November  elections  he  was  a  candidate  for  re-election.  The 
force  of  the  influence  of  the  graft  defense  was  thrown  against  him. 
Nevertheless,  he  was  re-elected  to  serve  as  Superior  Judge  of  the 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  until  Januaiy,  1919.  In  November, 
1914,  however,  he  was  elected  to  the  Supreme  Bench  of  the  State, 
his  term  of  office  beginning  in  January,  1915,  and  ending  in  January, 
1927. 

471  Of  the  three  Appellate  Judges  who  granted  this  writ,  one 
of  them,  Kerrigan,  was  prominent  in  the  flash-light  picture  taken 
at  Santa  Cruz  during  the  1906  State  Convention,  in  which  Ruef 
occupied  the  center  position  of  honor.     See  Chapter  IV. 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  437 

Judge  Lawlor  thereupon  dismissed  the  cases  as  di- 
rected. He  also  included  the  cases  against  Frank  G. 
Drum.  Eugene  de  Sabla  and  John  Martin,  which  were 
governed  by  much  the  same  considerations  as  the  trolley 
cases.  Four  years  and  a  half  had  passed  since  the 
indictments  had  been  brought.  Little  by  little,  the  in- 
fluence of  those  of  the  community  who  were  for  law 
and  order  and  impartial  law  enforcement  had  been 
sapped  and  broken  down.  The  prosecution  had  been 
worn  out ;  the  community  had  been  worn  out.  The  de- 
fense had  shown  greater  staying  qualities  than  either 
peace  ofificers  or  community.  It  had  been  pretty  thor- 
oughly demonstrated  that  convictions  could  not  be  had.*^- 

The  dismissal  of  the  trolley-graft  and  gas-graft  cases 
was  the  final  breaking  down  of  San  Francisco's  efiforts 
to  have  the  cases  tried  upon  their  merits.  To  be  sure, 
the  indictments  against  the  telephone-graft  defendants 
and  the  prizefight-graft  defendants,  and  against  Schmitz 
and  Ruef  still  stood.  Glass,  a  telephone-graft  defend- 
ant, had  been  convicted,  but  the  Supreme  Court  had 
reversed   the    decision    on   technicalities.*'"''      The    absent 

472  Assistant  District  Attorney  Berry  on  the  occasion  of  tlie  dis- 
missal of  the  indictments  said  on  this  point:  "If  the  men  who  are 
involved  in  this  transaction  have  transgressed  the  laws  they  are 
sowing-  the  wind  possibly  which  may  reap  the  whirlwind  by  break- 
ing down  the  institutions  of  the  land.  I  regret  exceedingly,  if 
these  men  are  guilty  of  the  offense  with  which  they  have  stood 
charged  here,  that  they  cannot  be  convicted.  I  assure  the  Court 
and  I  state  here  that  it  would  be  my  purpose  to  follow  these  cases, 
if  these  defendants  arc  guilty  and  the  evidence  were  had,  to  the 
uttermost  in  order  to  bring  about  the  ends  of  justice.  It  is  no 
doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  community  that  where  men  of  promi- 
nence and  where  men  of  wealth  are  concerned,  and  are  brought  be- 
fore the  bar  of  justice  and  justice  is  not  had,  that  those  who  are 
less  fortunate  in  influence  and  means  are  thereby  made  to  feel  and 
believe  that  this  is  not  a  government  for  those  who  stand  before 
the  law  equal  with  those  who  stand  with  the  tremendous  power 
of  influence  behind   them." 

473  The  seven  .Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  took  no  less  than 
four  views  of  the  points  raised   in   the  Glass  case.     The  majority 


438 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases 


witness,  Gallagher,  was  not  a  material  witness  in  the 
Glass  case.  But  when  along  in  August,  1912,  a  year 
after  the  dismissal  of  the  gas  and  trolley-graft  cases, 
Glass's  case  was  called,  it  was  found  that  important  wit- 
nesses had  disappeared.  The  incident  was  taken  by  the 
papers,  not  as  a  reflection  upon  the  community,  but  as 
a  joke  on  Judge  Lawlor.*^*  The  Glass  cases  were  finally 
dismissed. 

Former    Mayor    Schmitz    in    February,     1912,    was 
brought   to   trial.      Ruef   was   brought   over    from    San 

opinion  was  written  by  Justice  Henshaw,  and  concurred  in  by  Jus- 
tices Melvin  and  L.oris:an.  Chief  Justice  Beatty  concurred  in  the 
judgment,  but  not  in  all  the  particulars  of  the  opinion.  In  signing 
the  decision,  the  Chief  Justice  adds:  "I  concur  in  the  judgment 
of  reversal  and  in  most  particulars  in  the  opinion  of  Justice  Hen- 
shaw. I  shall,  if  other  pressing  duties  permit,  present  my  views 
in  a  separate  opinion."  (See  112  Pacific  Reporter,  page  297.)  The 
dissenting  opinion  was  written  by  Justice  Shaw  and  concurred  in 
by  Justice  Angellotti.  A  third  opinion  was  written  by  Justice  Sloss. 
.Justice  Sloss,  after  defending  the  single  point  in  the  majority 
opinion  in  which  he  concurs,  concludes:  "On  each  of  the  other 
points  discussed  in  the  opinion  of  Justice  Henshaw,  I  agree  with 
the  dissenting  members  of  the  court  (Shaw  and  Angellotti)  that 
no   prejudicial   error  was   committed." 

The  fourtli  opinion,  which  the  Chief  Justice  intimated  he  might 
file,  was  not  filed. 

474  The  following  from  the  San  Francisco  Call  of  August  2,  1912, 
indicates  the  completeness  of  the  triumph  of  the  defense  campaign: 

"Mrs.  Theodore  Halsey,  wife  of  Theodore  V.  Halsey,  appeared 
before  Superior  .Tudge  Lawlor  yesterday  morning  on  a  bench  war- 
rant in  the  case  of  iLiOuis  Glass,  indicted  for  bribery  in  the  tele- 
phone cases  growing  out  of  the  so-called  Graft  Prosecution.  She 
was  in  court  to  explain  the  absence  of  lier  liusband  from  the  State, 
whose  appearance  is  wanted  if  Lawlor  orders  Glass  to  trial. 

"Attorney  Bert  Schlesinger  appeared  with  Mrs.  Halsey,  explain- 
ing the  bench  warrant  was  void  inasmuch  as  Mrs.  Halsey  was  not 
a  fugitive.  He  said  he  did  not  wish  to  impede  the  trial  in  any  way 
and  would  allow  her  to  answer  any  questions  propounded  by  the 
Court. 

"Lawlor  asked  Mrs.  Halsey,  through  her  attorney,  where  her 
husband  was.  Mrs.  Halsey  was  not  compelled  to  take  the  stand. 
She  said  Halsey  left  San  Francisco  six  weeks  ago  because  of  ill 
health,  going  to  Nevada,  and  that  she  has  not  heard  from  him  in  a 
week. 

"Assistant  District  Attorney  Berry  said  a  motion  was  before 
the  Court  to  dismiss  the  indictments  pending  against  Glass  and  he 
wished  to  know  the  Court's  intention.  Lawlor  said  he  believed 
Halsey  and  Einil  J.  Zimmer,  who  is  said  to  be  in  Europe,  were 
competent  witnesses  against  Glass,  and  It  was  his  duty  to  try 
Glass  again.     He  said  the  result  of  the  former  Glass  trials  showed 


Dismissal  of  the  Graft  Cases  439 

Quentin  prison  to  testify  against  him.  But  Ruef  re- 
fused to  testify  unless  the  Ruef  indictments  were  dis- 
missed. This,  Judge  Dunne/'^  before  whom  many  Ruef 
indictments  were  pending,  refused  to  do.  Ruef  did  not 
testify.  Schmitz  was  acquitted.  The  other  indictments 
against  Schmitz  were  eventually  dismissed. 

The  same  course  followed  in  the  cases  of  the  other 
graft  defendants.  The  graft  defense  had  beaten  San 
Francisco ;  its  record  of  shameful  success  was  complete. 


Halsey  had  knowledse  of  the  source  of  the  bribe  money  and  who 
paid  it  to  the  Supervisors. 

"Lawlor  continued  the  cases  of  Glass  until  August  12th,  to  learn 
from  the  District  Attorney  if  the  Prosecution  has  exhausted  all  its 
resources  in  the  matter. 

"Schlesinger  and  Mrs.  Halsey  were  about  to  leave  the  courtroom 
when  Lawlor  said,  'I  trust,  Mr.  Schlesinger,  you  will  inform  the 
Court  of  the  whereabouts  of  Mr.  Halsey,  if  you  learn  in  the  mean- 
time." 

"  'I  will  assist  the  Court  in  any  way  possible,'  replied  Schles- 
inger.  'But  I  regard  all  these  Graft  Prosecutions  as  corpses  and  the 
mourners   have  long  since  ceased  to  mourn.' 

"The  Judge  said  nothing  in  the  record  showed  such  a  condition. 
Petective  Sergeant  Prool  took  the  stand  and  said  he  had  learned 
nothing  more  of  the  whereabouts  of  either  Halsey  or  Zimmer." 

475  Judge  Dunne,  until  the  last,  stood  as  staunchly  for  effective 
prosecution  of  the  .i:;raft  cases  as  had  Judge  Lawlor. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

Ruef's  Last  Refuge  Fails. 

That  a  jury  of  twelve  men  had  found  Ruef  guilty  of 
bribe-giving  did  not  mean  necessarily  that  the  broken 
boss  would  be  confined  at  San  Quentin,  the  prison  to 
which  he  had  been  sentenced  to  serve  his  fourteen-year 
term.  Indeed,  the  probabilities  were  very  much  against 
his  suffering  any  such  indignity.  Ruef  had,  at  the  test, 
continued  "true  to  his  class" ;  he  had  not  assisted  the 
State  in  bringing  the  bribe-givers  to  account.  Men, 
powerful  in  financial,  social  and  political  circles  were 
unquestionably  under  the  greatest  obligation  to  him. 
He  had  not  "gone  back  on  his  class."  His  "class"  owed 
it  to  him  to  save  him  from  stripes,  as  Ruef  by  his 
course  had  beyond  question  saved  many  of  his  "class" 
from  stripes. 

Having  been  convicted  by  a  jury,  the  first  move  was 
for  Ruef  to  appeal  to  the  trial  judge  for  a  new  trial. 
This  appeal  was  denied  him.  Ruef  then  appealed  from 
the  judgment  of  the  trial  court  to  the  District  Court 
of  Appeal.  The  three  justices  of  the  District  Court  of 
Appeal  found  nothing  in  Ruef's  contention  to  warrant 
the  granting  of  a  new  trial. ^^'^  Thus  four  judges  found 
that  Ruef's  trial  had  been  fair,  even  technically  fair. 
But  Ruef's  possibilities  were  not  exhausted. 

The    Supreme    Court    could,    if    four    of    the    seven 

476  See  Cal.  App.  Rpts.,  vol.  14,  page  576. 


Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails  441 

members  were  so  inclined,  grant  him  a  rehearing,  and 
to  the   Supreme   Court   Ruef  appHed. 

The  Cahfornia  State  Constitution  provides  that 
"the  Supreme  Court  shall  have  power  to  order  any 
cause  pending  .  .  .  before  a  district  court  of  ap- 
peal to  be  heard  and  determined  by  the  Supreme  Court. 
The  order  last  mentioned  may  be  made  before  judg- 
ment has  been  pronounced  by  a  district  court  of  ap- 
peal, or  within  thirty  days  after  such  judgment  shall 
have   become   final   therein." 

The  District  Court  of  Appeal  found  against  Ruef 
on  November  23,  1910;  this  action  became  final  thirty 
days  later,  or  on  December  23,  1910.  The  Supreme 
Court  had  thirty  days  after  December  23,  that  is  to 
say,  until  January  22,  1911,  to  grant  Ruef  a  rehearing, 
if  a  majority  of  the  seven  Supreme  Justices  so  decided. 
If  the  Supreme  Court  failed  to  act  before  the  close  of 
January  22,  Ruef,  unless  pardoned  or  parolled,  would 
have  to  go  to  State  prison. 

Ruef,  on  December  31,  1910,  petitioned  the  Su- 
preme Court  for  a  rehearing.  On  January  23,  an- 
nouncement was  made  that  the  Supreme  Court,  by  a 
four  to  three  decision,  had  decided  to  grant  Ruef's 
petition.  The  decision  was  received  with  protest  from 
one  end  of  the  State  to  the  other.'*^^     The  Lesfislature 


478  Said  the  Sacramento  Bee  in  an  editorial  article  discussing 
this  order,  the  day  after  it  was  made  public,  January  24,  1911: 

"It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  order,  by  a  bare  majority  of  the 
Supreme  Court  and — with  the  single  exception  of  the  Chief  Justice, 
by  the  three  of  its  members  least  esteemed  and  respected  by  the 
public — has  excited  disgust  and  exasperation  throughout  California. 
There  is  a  strong  popular  feeling  and  belief  that  the  Supreme  Court 
should  not  thus  have  interposed  to  save  from  punishment  the  most 
notorious  scoundrel  and  corruptionist  in  California,  a  man  known 
to  everybody  as  having  enriched  himself  by  systematic  grafting 
and  by  the  bribery  of  public  servants  in  the  Interests  of  corpora- 


442  Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails 

was  in  session  at  the  time.  Senator  George  W.  Cart- 
wright  of  Fresno  introduced  a  resolution  *"  requesting 
the  Assembly — where  impeachment  proceedings  must 
originate — to  take  such  steps  as  might  be  deemed 
necessary  for  investigation  of  the  Supreme  Court's  con- 
duct. 

And  finally  there  came  the  rumor — at  first  not  gen- 
erally believed,  but  later  confirmed  by  the  Supreme 
Justices  themselves — that  one  of  the  Justices  at  least 
had  signed  the  order  granting  Ruef  his  rehearing  be- 
fore the  Attorney-General  had  filed  his  brief  in  answer 
to   Ruef's    petition.      The   Justice   who   had   thus   acted 

tions,  a  man  with  many  indictments  resting  against  him,  but  con- 
victed only  on  one. 

"What  adds  to  this  general  disgust  and  indignation  over  the 
Supreme  Court's  order  is  apprehension  that  the  rehearing  before 
that  tribunal  may  result  in  the  grant  of  a  new  trial  for  Ruef,  a 
reversal  which  in  all  probability  would  be  equivalent  to  a  final 
discharge.  Such  changes  have  taken  place  in  San  Francisco  in  the 
last  two  years,  especially  in  the  office  of  the  District  Attorney,  that 
a  new  trial  would  have  small  chance  of  ending  in  conviction. 

"No  reasons  are  given  by  the  Supreme  Court  for  its  order  for  a 
rehearing,  but  presumably  they  are  of  a  purely  technical  sort,  for 
the  fact  of  Ruef's  guilt  was  abundantly  proved  on  the  trial." 

479  The   Cartwright  resolution  was   in   full  as   follows: 

"Whereas,  The  Supreme  Court  of  this  State  on  or  about  the 
23rd  of  January,  1911,  rendered  a  decision  in  the  case  of  the  Peo- 
ple of  the  State  of  California  vs.  Abraham  Ruef,  in  which  the  de- 
fendant is  granted  a  rehearing;  and 

"Whereas,  Various  newspapers  have  published  criticisms  con- 
demning said  decision,  and  intimating  that  the  Justices  participa- 
ting therein  were  controlled  by  corrupt  and  unworthy  motives;  and 

"Whereas,  The  integrity  of  our  courts  has  been  frequently  as- 
sailed by  public  speakers  and  by  many  of  our  citizens,  all  of  which 
tends  to  destroy  the  confidence  of  The  People  in  the  purity  and 
integrity  of  our  courts  of  justice;  be  it 

"Resolved,  by  the  Senate,  That  the  Assembly  be  requested  to 
appoint  a  committee  of  the  Assembly,  such  committee  to  be  au- 
thorized, empowered  and  instructed  to  investigate  the  whole  sub- 
ject matter  and  particularly  to  investigate  said  decision,  the 
grounds  upon  which  the  decision  is  based  and  the  conduct  of  the 
Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  relation  to  said  decision,  and  that 
the  committee  report  to  the  Assembly  the  results  of  such  investi- 
gation, with  such  recommendations  as  to  the  committee  may  seem 
meet  and  proper  in  the  premises;   be  it  further 

"Resolved,  That  said  committee  shall  have  power  to  summon 
witnesses,  and  to  send  for  persons  and  papers  and  to  issue  sub- 
poenaes  and  compel  attendance  of  witnesses  when  necessary." 


Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails  443 

was  Justice  Henshaw,  the  same  Supreme  Court  Justice 
who  occupied  prominent  position  in  the  picture  of  the 
banquet  scene  at  the  1906  Santa  Cruz  convention,  in 
which  Ruef  appears  in  the  central  position  of  honor.*^^ 

The  facts  later  brought  out  involved  the  following 
dates : 

December  31,  1910 — Ruef's  petition  for  rehearing  was 
filed  in  Supreme  Court. 

January  10 — W.  H.  Metson  was  granted  permis- 
sion to  file  a  brief  in  the  case  as  Amicus  Curiae. 

January  10 — Justice  Henshaw  signed  the  order  grant- 
ing  Ruef   a    rehearing. 

January  11 — Justice  Henshaw  left  the  State  and 
was  absent  until  after  the  order  granting  Ruef  a  re- 
hearing had  been   filed. 

January  12 — Metson  filed  his  brief  as  Amicus 
Curiae. 

January  12 — The  Attorney-General  filed  his  reply 
to  Ruef's  petition  for  a  rehearing. 

January  19 — Justice  Melvin  signed  the  order  grant- 
ing   Ruef's    petition. 

January  20 — Attorney-General  filed  reply  to  Met- 
son's   brief. 

January  21 — Chief  Justice  Beatty.  and  Justices  Shaw, 
Angellotti,  Lorigan  and  Sloss  met  in  the  chambers  of 
the  Chief  Justice  for  consultation  regarding  Ruef's 
petition.  Justice  Lorigan  signed  the  order  granting 
the  petition.  Justices  Shaw,  Angellotti  and  Sloss  de- 
clined   to    concur    in    such    order,    and    Chief    Justice 

480  See  Chapter  IV. 


444  Riief s  Last  Refuge  Fails 

Beatty  reserved  his  decision  in  the  matter  until  Janu- 
ary 22,  1911. 

January  22,  1911 — (Sunday,  the  last  day  on  which 
the  order  could  be  signed)  Chief  Justice  Beatty  signed 
the  order,  his  being  the  fourth  name  on  the  document, 
four  signatures  being  necessary  to  make   it  effective. 

January  23 — A  typewritten  copy  of  the  order  was 
filed  with  the  Clerk  of  the  Court,  the  original  being 
retained  in  the  ofifice  of  the  secretaries  to  the  Justices. 

Up  to  this  time,  eleven  judges  had  passed  upon 
Ruef's  case.  Seven  of  them — one  Superior  Judge,  three 
Judges  of  the  District  Court  of  Appeal  and  three 
Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court — had  decided  that  Ruef 
had  had  a  fair  trial,  that  no  technicality  could  be  in- 
voked to  save  him.  Four  of  the  eleven  judges,  in 
a  way  which,  to  the  lay  mind  at  least,  was  some- 
what irregular,  had  decided  to  grant  a  rehearing.  The 
public  was  not  at  all  backward  in  expressing  the  opinion 
that  this  would  mean  a  new  trial ;  and  that  under  con- 
ditions as  they  were  at  San  Francisco,  Ruef  Vv^ould  not 
for  a  second  time  be  convicted. ^*^  As  is  usual  in  such 
cases,  the  public  was  dissatisfied,  suspicious,  indignant, 
but  without  plan  or  remedy.     Some  demanded  investiga- 

481  This  view  was  entirely  justified  by  the  outcome  in  the  Coffey 
case.  Coffey  was  one  of  the  boodle  Supervisors  who  had  at  the 
test  refused  "to  go  back  on  his  class."  He  was  tried  for  bribe- 
taking and  convicted.  In  the  Court  of  Appeal  practically  the  same 
points  were  raised  in  his  favor  as  were  raised  in  the  Ruef  case. 
The  Appellate  Court  refused  to  interfere.  The  Supreme  Court,  by 
a  three  to  four  decision,  granted  Coffey  a  rehearing  and  later  a 
new  trial.  The  line-up  of  the  eleven  judges  was  the  same  in  Cof- 
fey's case  as  in  Ruef's — seven  found  Coffey  had  had  a  fair  trial; 
four  found  that  he  had  not.  The  four — under  the  rules  of  the 
legal  game — were  more  potent  than  the  seven.  The  jury  verdict 
was  nullified.  The  indictments  against  Coffey  were  finally  dis- 
missed. Had  the  Supreme  Court's  order  for  a  rehearing  of  the 
Ruef  case  stood,  the  outcome  would  have  unquestionably  been  the 
same. 


Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails  445 

tion  at  the  hands  of  the  Legislature ;  others  wanted 
impeachment  *-^  proceedings  instituted.  Mr.  William 
Denman,  a  leader  of  the  California  bar,  urged  before 
the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  that  the  Legislature 
owed  it  to  the  Supreme  Court,  as  well  as  to  itself  and 
to  the  public,  to  make  thorough  investigation,  and  de- 
manded of  the  committee  if  the  Legislature  on  proper 
showing  would  declare  the  office  of  a  Supreme  Justice 
vacant. 

Senator  Shanahan.  a  member  of  the  committee,  was 
quick  to  reply  that  imder  such  a  showing  the  Legis- 
lature would  certainly  act.  "But,"  added  Shanahan — 
and  here  he  touched  the  weak  point  of  impeachment 
proceedings — "it  would  take  months  if  not  years.  That 
is  why  impeachment  proceedings  will  not  be  instituted. 
Impeachment    proceedings    from    the    trial    of    Warren 


482  Some  of  tlie  ablest  men  in  the  State  urged  impeachment  pro- 
ceedings. "If  the  charges,"  said  United  States  Senator  John  D. 
Works  in  a  letter  to  State  Senator  Hewitt,  "made  against  Judge 
Henshaw  by  the  Attorney-General  of  this  State,  under  oath,  are 
true,  why  is  it  the  Legislature  of  this  State  before  this  has  not  com- 
menced impeachment  proceedings  against  him? 

"The  legislature  has  no  right  to  shrink  from  this  duty  and  re- 
sponsibility and  relieve  itself  from  taking  such  a  step  by  relegating 
that  duty  and  responsibility  to  The  People  of  the  State  by  the  en- 
actment of  recall  legislation.  If  Judge  Henshaw,  or  any  other 
judge,  has  violated  his  duty  to  the  State  and  betrayed  his  office 
as  the  charges  made  against  him  indicate,  the  duty  of  the  legisla- 
ture is  imperative,  and  that  duty  should  be  performed  without 
hesitation   and   without   delay." 

Justice  Henshaw,  in  discussing  Judge  Works'  letter,  in  an  in- 
terview in  the  San  Francisco  Examiner,  February  15,  1911,  is 
quoted  as  saying:  "All  the  charges  made  by  Attorney  General 
Webb  in  his  affidavit  attacking  the  Ruef  rehearing  order  of  Janu- 
ary 30th  are  true.  The  orders  were  signed  in  the  manner  stated 
and  I  told  him  so  when  he  visited  my  office.  There  was  nothing 
unusual  about  it.  It  was  done  in  accordance  with  the  usual  prac- 
tice of  this   court. 

"We  seldom  meet  in  session  to  sign  the  orders.  There  may  be 
twenty  cases  to  be  passed  on  in  one  week.  Each  Justice  looks  them 
over  at  his  leisure  and  signs  what  orders  he  agrees  to. 

"I  was  out  of  the  State,  as  Mr.  Webb  says,  and  at  the  time  that 
he  says.  I  did  not  even  imagine  that  there  was  a  legal  point  in- 
volved.    The  practice  never  has  been  questioned  before." 


446  Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails 

Hastings  to  the  present  time  have  proved  unsatisfac- 
tory." 

But,  however  individuals  differed  on  the  question  of 
impeachment  proceedings,  the  general  attitude  was  that 
the  Attorney-General  should  take  steps,  if  such  course 
were  practical,  to  have  the  order  granting  Ruef  a  re- 
hearing set  aside.  This  the  Attorney-General  did. 
He  attacked  the  order  before  the  tribunal  which  had 
made  it,  the  highest  tribunal  in  the  State,  the  only 
one  to  which  appeal  could  be  made. 

And  the  Supreme  Court  set  the  order  aside,  de- 
claring it  to  be  "ineffectual  for  any  purpose  and  void." 

But  the  Supreme  Court  did  not  set  the  order  aside 
because  Justice  Henshaw  had  signed  the  document  be- 
fore the  argument  of  the  prosecution  had  been  heard. 
The  order  was  set  aside  on  the  ground  that  Henshaw, 
being  absent  from  the  State  when  the  signature  of 
the  fourth  Justice  was  attached  thereto,  was  at  the  time, 
being  absent  from  the  State,  unable  to  exercise  any 
judicial  function  as  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
Without  Henshaw's  signature,  the  signatures  of  but 
three  of  the  Supreme  Justices  appeared  on  the  order. 
As  the  signatures  of  four  of  the  Justices  were  re- 
quired to  make  the  order  effective  the  Court  declared 
it  to  be  worthless.**^ 


483  The  following  is  from  the  Supreme  Court  decision  revoking 
the  Ruef  order  for  a  rehearing  (see  California  App.  Reports,  Vol.  14, 
page  576):  "The  moment  Justice  Henshaw  left  the  State,  in  view 
of  the  authorities  already  referred  to,  he  became  unable  to  exercise 
any  judicial  function  as  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  In  this 
State  or  out  01  it,  and  this  disability  continued  during  the  whole 
period  of  his  absence.  During  that  time  his  situation  was  the  same 
as  If  he  had  absolutely  ceased  to  be  a  member  of  this  court.  It  is 
true  that  there  was  a  suspension,  only,  of  his  judicial  power,  Instead 
of  a  final  abrogation  thereof,  but  the  suspension,  while  it  continued, 
was  as  absolute  In  its  effect  on  his  judicial  power  as  would  have 


Rucf s  Last  Refuge  Fails  447 

Thirty  days  from  the  time  the  judgment  of  the 
District  Court  of  Appeal  became  final  having  expired, 
the  Supreme  Court  could  not  interfere  further.  Ruef 
had  lost  his  last  technical  play  on  a  technicality.  He 
went  to  State  prison. 

But  Ruef  did  not  go  to  State  prison  because  a  jury 
of  twelve  men  had  found  him  guilty  of  offering  a  bribe 
to  a  Supervisor;  he  did  not  go  to  State  prison  because 
seven  out  of  eleven  judges  who  passed  upon  the  ques- 
tions involved  had  found  that  he  had  had  a  fair  trial. 
Ruef  went  to  State  prison  when  he  did  because  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Supreme  Court  of  California  was  absent 
from  the  State  at  a  time  inopportune   for  Ruef. 

Ordinarily,  after  his  failure  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
Ruef  would  have  had  two  more  chances  for  escaping 
the  full  penalty  of  his  bribe-giving,  namely,  parole  at 
the  hands  of  the  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors,  and 
pardon  from  the  Governor. 

But  again  was  Ruef  unfortunate.  Hiram  W.  John- 
son,   as    Governor    of    California,    sat    at    Sacramento. 


been  a  complete  vananoy  in  his  office.  Assent,  to  or  concurrence  in  a 
decision  or  order  of  the  court  bein^  the  exercise  of  a  purely  ju- 
dicial function,  liis  previous  proposal  to  concur  in  a  proposed  order, 
one  that  had  not  yet  been  made  and  one  that  had  not  yet  received 
the  assent  of  other  justices  makinp  it  an  accomplished  decision, 
temporarily  ceased  to  be  effectual  for  any  purpose,  and  so  con- 
tinued ineffectual  for  any  purpose  during  the  whole  period  of  his 
absence.  Such  previously  indicated  willingness  to  concur  could 
not  accomplish  that  which  the  absent  justice  himself  could  not  ac- 
complish. The  time  having:  expired  before  he  returned  it  follows 
that  he  never  concurred  with  even  a  single  other  justice  in  the 
purported  order.  (1)  Admittedly  this  order,  if  it  ever  did  become 
effectual,  did  not  become  so  until  .January  22-  1911,  when  the  fOTirth 
justice  appended  his  name.  At  that  time,  however.  Justice  Hen- 
shaw  could  not  effectually  join  thf-rein,  because  of  his  absence  from 
the  State,  and  his  previously  indicated  willingness  to  join  therein 
could  have  no  legal  effect.  The  result  is  that  only  three  justices  of 
this  court  concurred  in  the  purported  order,  and  as  such  order 
could  be  made  only  by  the  concurrence  of  four  justices,  it  was  in- 
effectual for  any  purpose  and  void." 


448  Ruef's  Last  Refuge  Fails 

He  had  gone  into  office  pledged  "to  kick  the  Southern 
Pacific  machine  out  of  the  State  government."  He 
was  keeping  his  pledge.  There  was  no  pressure  which 
men  of  Mr.  Ruef's  "class"  could  bring  upon  Governor 
Johnson  to  move  him  to  grant  Ruef  freedom. 

The  possibility  of  parole  was  as  remote,  although 
the  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors — who  in  Cali- 
fornia are  appointed  for  ten-year  terms — continued  for 
a  time  under  the  old  order. 

One  of  the  five  directors  was  Tirey  L.  Ford  *^*  of 
the  United  Railroads,  Ruef  went  to  prison  convicted 
of  a  charge  of  bribing  a  Supervisor  to  vote  to  give 
the  United  Railroads  its  overhead  trolley  permit.  The 
evidence  indicated,  if  it  did  not  show,  and  Mr.  Ruef 
has  since  confessed,  that  this  money  came  to  him  from 
General  Ford.  Ruef,  because  of  the  crime,  foimd  him- 
self  confined   in   a   prison   of   which   General   Ford   was 


484  Ford's  term  as  prison  director  expired  January  12,  1914. 
He  continued  in  office  until  his  term  had  expired  and  his  successor 
had  been  appointed.  After  Ruef  had  confessed  that  the  trolley 
bribe  money  had  come  to  him  through  Ford,  the  Sacramento  Bee  of 
August  30,  1912,  after  reciting  the  allegations  of  Ruef's  confession, 
said: 

"There,  in  brief,  is  the  tale  which  Abraham  Ruef  tells  with 
much  particularity.  It  is  now  in  order  for  the  Board  of  Prison 
Directors  to  ask  the  resignation  of  Prison  Director  Ford. 

"Undoubtedly,  Governor  Johnson  would  make  a  demand  to  that 
effect  were  he  in  the  State. 

"Much  sorrow,  if  not  sympathy,  has  been  felt  for  Tirey  L.  Ford 
all  over  California.  The  Bee  has  expressed  some  itself.  The  feel- 
ing has  been  that  a  man  of  naturally  fine  principles  and  honorable 
sentiments  had  been  warped  by  his  environments,  and  had  done 
under  instructions  that  at  wliich  his  better  nature  rebelled. 

"It  would  be  futile  now  to  discuss  what  Tirey  L.  Ford  should 
have  done  and  should  not  have  done;  or  to  declare  that  no  tempta- 
tion should  have  led  him  to  perform  any  other  than  legal  work  for 
the  United  Railroads. 

"■The  Bee  will  say  as  little  as  it  can  say  conscientiously  under 
the  circumstances.  Human  nature  is  human  nature  the  world  over. 
And  The  Bee  men  cannot  forget  the  long,  long  years  of  intimate 
friendship  with  and  faith  in  Tirey  L.  Ford.  But  every  considera- 
tion of  the  eternal  fitness  of  things  demands  that  he  should  no 
longer  remain  a  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Prison  Directors." 


Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails  449 

one  of  the  five  governors,  with  power  of  parole  in  his 
hands.  But  it  developed  that  Governor  Johnson  had 
power  to  set  aside  such  parole.  So  Ruef  could  expect 
Httle  from  even  the  Board  of  Prison  Directors. 

Scarcely  had  Ruef  been  placed  behind  the  bars, 
however,  than  a  State-wide  campaign  was  inaugurated 
to  compel  his  pardon  or  parole.  The  public  was  treated 
daily  by  the  newspapers  with  descriptions  of  the  dis- 
comfitures *^^  which  Ruef  was  suffering.  When  he  was 
found,  for  example,  smuggling  sweet  chocolates  into 
prison,  and  was  punished  for  it,  the  Ruef-friendly  press 
cried  out  at  the  cruelty  and  unreasonableness  of  such 
punishment. *®® 

The   suffering  which   his   imprisonment   has   brought 

485  The  following  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  articles  descriptive  of 
Ruef's  suffering  in  prison,  which  have  been  inflicted  upon  the  Cali- 
fornia public  ever  since  Ruef  donned  stripes;  it  appeared  in  The 
San  Francisco  Bulletin  of  December  21,  1912:  "Ruef  Is  an  epicure. 
As  discordant  sounds  do  violence  to  the  feelings  of  a  musician 
gifted  with  an  exquisite  ear,  so  coarse,  badly  cooked  or  tasteless 
food  does  violence  to  the  epicure  who  is  gifted  with  exquisite  nerves 
for  inhaling,  tasting  and  appreciating  delicate  flavors.  The  gastric 
juices  of  the  epicure  cannot  become  freely  active  on  mere  hunger 
as  with  men  not  so  endowed.  Digestion  with  the  epicure  must 
wait  upon  the  fine  dictates  of  the  palate;  and  a  stomach  so  guarded 
cannot  wantonly  change  to  an  extreme  opposite  without  material 
suffering.  To  eat  merely  to  be  filled,  to  overeat,  to  eat  hur- 
riedly, is  for  the  epicure,  as  one  epicure  puts  it,  'to  commit  moral 
sins.'  Ruef  since  his  imprisonment  has  been  compelled  to  do  all 
these    things." 

486  To  this  complaint  of  cruelty  to  Ruef,  The  Fresno  Republican 
made  sharp  answer:  "A  visitor,"  said  The  Republican,  "smuggled 
articles  to  Ruef — nothing  more  dangerous  than  sweet  chocolate  and 
newspaper  clippings,  to  be  sure,  but  still  a  covert  violation  of  a 
necessary  rule — so  Ruef  is  deprived  of  visitors  and  letters  for  two 
months,  and  the  automatic  application  of  a  general  rule  postpones 
his  application  for  parole  for  six  months.  Whereat  there  is  wailing 
and  woe,  and  the  San  Francisco  Call  says  that  Ruef's  friends  re- 
gard it  as  particularly  unfortunate  that  he  should  be  deprived  of 
visitors  just  at  the  time  when  a  movement  for  his  parole  is  go- 
ing on. 

"To  all:  Let  us  be  sympathetic.  Only  let  us  make  it  general. 
Ruef  shall  have  his  sweet  chocolate.  But  all  the  other  prisoners 
shall  have  it  too.  Ruef  shall  sneak  things  into  prison,  inside  his 
blouse,  by  bribing  the  guards.  But  all  the  other  prisoners  shall 
have  all  the  like  privileges,  though  it  is  known  that  some  of  them 
would  prefer  dope,   daggers  and  dynamite  to  sweet  chocolate." 

15 


450  Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails 

upon  the  members  of  his  family  is  dwelt  upon  at  length. 
Letters  from  them,  pleading  for  assistance  for  their 
imprisoned  relative  have  been  received  by  many  whose 
assistance  it  was  thought  might  prove  effective  in  se- 
curing his  release.  But  when  Ruef  was  brought  back 
from  San  Quentin  prison  to  San  Francisco  to  testify 
at  Schmitz's  trial,  the  pathetic  story  was  published 
broadcast  that  these  letter-writing  relatives  had  been 
kept  in  ignorance  of  his  imprisonment,  and  thought 
him   to   be  traveling   in   Europe.**^ 

One  of  the  most  contemptible  stories  circulated  to 
create  public  opinion  for  his  release  was  that  Ruef 
had  been  made  scapegoat  because  of  his  religion,  Ruef 
is  a  Jew,  circulators  of  this  story  insisted  that  he  is 
in  prison  because  he  is  a  Jew,  while  the  gentile  bribe- 
givers go  free. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  gentiles  associated  with 
Ruef  have  gone  free  because  of  Ruef's  treachery  to  the 
graft  prosecution,  but  this  does  not  prevent  the  circula- 
tion of  the  story. 

A  saner  view,  breathing  of  better  citizenship,  came 

487  Commenting  upon  this  the  Sacramento  Bee,  in  Its  issue  of 
February  9,  1912,  said:  "In  an  effort  to  create  sympathy  for  Abra- 
ham Ruef,  a  story  was  originated  at  San  Francisco,  and  has  found 
wide  publicity  as  news,  that  the  aged  mother  of  the  felon  has  been 
kept  in  ignorance  of  his  imprisonment,  and  does  not  even  know  of 
his  conviction  for  bribery. 

"Yet  letters  purporting  to  come  from  and  to  be  signed  by  Ruef's 
mother,  and  pleading  for  his  parole,  have  been  received  by  The 
Bee  and  other  newspapers  for  months  past.  Either  these  letters 
were  forgeries  and  fabrications,  or  this  tale  of  the  mother's  ignor- 
ance of  Ruef's  confinement  is  mere  fiction. 

"In  either  case  a  contemptible  trick  has  been  played  by  some 
agency  both  active  and  unscrupulous  in  seeking  to  promote  Ruef's 
release.  After  this  the  public  and  the  newspapers  may  well  be 
suspicious  of  sympathetic  stories  respecting  Ruef  and  his  confine- 
ment. If  he  is  personally  responsible  for  the  effort  to  exploit  his 
mother  in  the  manner  here  related,  he  is  even  a  more  despicable 
specimen  of  humanity  than  the  known  facts  of  his  career  would 
Indicate." 


Ruefs  Last  Refuge  Fails  451 

from  Rabbi  Stephen  S.  Wise  of  the  New  York  Free 
Synagogue.  "Israel,"  said  Rabbi  Wise,  "is  not  re- 
sponsible for  Ruefs  crimes  any  more  than  the  Roman 
or  Protestant  Church  is  responsible  for  the  crimes  of 
its  communicants.  But  we  of  the  House  of  Israel  in 
America  would  be  in  part  answerable  for  Ruefs  mis- 
deeds unless  we  made  it  clear,  as  we  do,  that  Israel  is 
unutterably  pained  by  this  blot  upon  its  record  of  good 
citizenship    in    America." 

By  far  the  most  astonishing  support  of  the  move- 
ment to  free  Ruef  came  from  the  San  Francisco  Bul- 
letin and  Fremont  Older,  its  managing  editor.  Older 
was  one  of  the  strongest  supporters  of  the  graft  prose- 
cution, as  was  the  paper  under  his  management.  But 
once  the  graft  prosecution  was  concluded,  Older  and 
the  Bulletin  became  the  most  persistent  of  the  sup- 
porters of  the  movement  to  secure  Ruef  his  freedom.*^^ 

488  Older,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  S.  W.  Plopkins,  of  Lodi,  gives  his 
reasons  for  working  for  Ruefs  release  as  follows: 

"San  Francisco,  September  25,  1911.  Dr.  S.  W.  Hopkins,  Presi- 
dent Board  of  Healtli.  Lodi,  Cal.  Dear  Sir:  If  you  read  my  article 
in  the  Survey,  I  think  there  is  much  in  it  that  you  did  not  under- 
stand. Perhaps  I  did  not  make  myself  clear.  I  tried  to.  I  wanted 
those  who  read  the  Survey  article  to  believe  tliat  I  at  least  no 
longer  think  we  are  going  to  better  the  world  by  punishing  men 
individually.  I  do  not  feel  that  it  is  good  for  people  or  for  the  edi- 
tor of  the  Pacific  Christian  to  want  vengeance  administered  to  our 
brothers  and  sisters.  I  think  vengeance,  and  by  vengeance  I  mean 
punishment,  makes  us  all  worse  rather  than  better.  I  have  asked 
for  mercy  for  Ruef  because  I  felt  that  I,  above  all  others,  had  done 
most  to  bring  about  his  downfall.  If  you  have  followed  the  long 
fight  the  Bulletin  has  made  during  the  past  eight  or  nine  years,  you 
will  recall  that  I  was  fighting  Ruef  long  years  before  the  city  woke 
up.  You  will  also  recall  that  I  attacked  him  bitterly  with  all  the 
Invectives  that  I  could  personally  command,  and  all  that  I  could 
hire.  I  cartooned  liim  in  stripes.  T  described  him  on  his  way  to 
San  Quentin;  told  how  I  thought  he  would  act  en  route,  and  what 
his  manner  would  be  when  the  barber  shaved  his  head,  and  how  he 
would  feel  when  locked  up  in  a  cell.  I  was  vindictive,  unscru- 
pulous, savage.  I  went  to  Washington  and  enlisted  Heney  in  the 
fight.  Burns  came,  and  Spreckels  joined  in  the  chase.  Then  I  pur- 
sued with  the  same  relentless  spirit  in  the  wake  of  these  men. 
At  last,  after  eight  years  of  a  man-hunting  and  man-hating  de- 
bauch,   Ruef  crossed   over  and   became   what  I  had  wanted   him   to 


452  Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails 

Largely  through  Older's  influence,  men  of  prominence 
throughout  the  country — with  apparently  no  very  clear 
knowledge  of  the  situation — have  been  induced  to  ex- 
press themselves  as  favorable  to  Ruef's  release. 

In  the  publicity  campaign  for  Ruef's  release  which 
gives  no  indication  of  abatement,  Ruef,  and  those  who 
seek  his  release,  are  praised  in  the  most  extravagant 
terms,  while  those  who  will  not  enroll  themselves 
in  his   interests  are  as  extravagantly  condemned.*®^ 

be,  what  I  had  longed  and  dreamed  that  he  might  be — a  convict, 
stripped  of  his  citizensliip,  stripped  of  everything  society  values 
except  the  remnant  of  an  ill-gotten  fortune.  It  was  then  I  said  to 
myself:  'I  have  got  him.  He  is  in  stripes.  He  Is  in  a  cell.  His 
head  is  shaved.  He  is  in  tears.  He  is  helpless,  beaten,  chained — 
killed,  so  far  as  his  old  life  is  concerned.  You  have  won.  How  do 
you  like  your  victory?  Do  you  enjoy  the  picture  now  that  it  is 
complete?  You  painted  it.  Every  savage  instinct  in  your  nature 
is  expressed  on  the  canvas.' 

"My  soul  revolted.  I  thought  over  my  own  life  and  the  many 
unworthy  things  I  had  done  to  others,  the  injustice,  the  wrongs 
I  had  been  guilty  of,  the  human  hearts  I  had  wantonly  hurt,  the 
sorrow  I  had  caused,  the  half-truths  I  had  told,  and  the  mitigating 
truths  I  had  withheld,  the  lies  I  had  allowed  to  go  undenied.  And 
then  I  saw  myself  al.so  stripped,  that  is,  stripped  of  all  pretense, 
sham,  self-righteousness,  holding  the  key  to  another  man's  cell. 
I  dropped  the  key.  I  never  want  to  see  it  again.  Let  it  be  taken 
up  and  held  by  those  who  feel  they  are  justified  in  holding  it.  I 
want  no  more  jail  keys.  For  the  rest  of  my  life  I  want  to  get  a 
little  nearer  to  the  forgiving  spirit  that  Christ  expressed. 

"Isn't  what  I  am  accusing  myself  of,  true  of  all  of  us?  Think 
it  over.  Think  of  your  own  life.  Think  of  the  lives  of  those 
around  you,  and  see  if  you  cannot  discern  that  we  are  all  guilty. 
And  then  think  whether  or  not  you  believe  that  society  will  be 
benefited  by  denying  Ruef  a  parole,  which  only  gives  him  a  half 
liberty  and  still  holds  him  under  the  restrictions  of  the  prison  until 
his  term  is  finished. 

"I  am  surprised  at  the  tone  of  the  article  you  sent  me,  published 
in  the  Pacific  Christian.  It  reads  like  a  chapter  out  of  the  Old 
Testament  rather  than  the  New.  But  I  fear  that  the  world  is  be- 
ing governed  more  upon  the  lines  of  the  Old  Testament  than  the 
New.  I  asree  with  the  article  about  the  young  men  who  have  been 
sent  to  prison  for  years.  I  would  release  them  all  if  I  could.  But 
I  can't.  I  can't  even  release  Ruef,  because  society  has  not  ad- 
vanced far  enough  to  make  it  possible.  But  I  can  at  least  be  true 
to  myself  and  express  what  I  honestly  feel. 

"I  wish  as  a  favor  to  me  that  you  would  send  a  copy  of  this 
letter  to  the  Pacific  Christian,  as  I  am  leaving  for  the  East  and 
will  not  have  time.  I  should  like  them  to  know  what  I  am  writing 
you.      Sincerely   yours,  Fremont    Older." 

489  The  San  Jose  Mercury,  controlled  by  Congressman  E.  A. 
Hayes,  in  its  issue  of  September  22,  1911,  published  one  of  these 
Ruef  campaign  articles.     The  following  description  of  Ruef  occurs: 

"Not    many    months    have    gone    since    Ruef    found    domicile    m 


Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails  453 

But  in  spite  of  all  that  is  being  done  to  create 
public  opinion  favorable  to  Ruef's  release,  the  sober 
expression  of  machine-free  press  and  public  is  that 
Ruef  should  be  treated  both  on  the  score  of  parole 
and  confinement  precisely  the  same  as  any  other  pris- 
oner.*°°  This  attitude  was  clearly  presented  by  the 
Fresno  Republican  at  the  time  Ruef  was  found  smug- 
gling chocolate  sweets  into  the  prison. 

In  the  attitude  of  prison  officials  toward  Ruef,  the 
Republican  pointed  out,  there  are  two  alternatives. 
"One,"  the  Republican  went  on  to  say,  "is  the  course  of 
Warden  Hoyle,  in  treating  Ruef  like  any  other  prisoner, 
and  disciplining  him  humanely  but  sternly,  for  any  in- 
fraction of  the  necessary  prison  rules.  The  other  is 
to  let  Ruef  have  privileges  which  the  other  prisoners 
do  not  and  can  not  have.  News  travels  nowhere  faster 
or  surer  than  in  prison.  If  Ruef  bribes  guards,  the 
officials  may  not  know  it,  but  the  prisoners  will.    If  Ruef 


states  prison.  But  what  changes  Time  has  wrought  in  that  brief 
period.  Tlie  little  man  sits  in  his  cell,  lonely  and  solemn,  as  he 
meditates  on  the  singularities  of  mankind.  With  no  bitterness  in 
his  soul,  without  a  thought  of  revenge  twisting  his  sense  of  peace 
and  good  will  toward  man,  he  passes  the  time  planning  the  com- 
forts of  his  fellow  unfortunates  and  reading  and  rereading  the  let- 
ters that  come  so  regularly  from  the  loved  ones  whose  burdens 
he  so  gladly  carried  and  to  whose  joy  he  so  gladly  contributed.  He 
is  neither  unhappy  nor  without  hope." 

The  same  article  contains  another  word  picture — of  Francis  J. 
Heney.     It  reads: 

"But  if  Older  has  turned  'right  about  face,'  Heney,  the  other 
member  of  the  firm,  has  not.  He  remains  the  unforgiving,  snarl- 
ing, short-haired  bulldog,  with  his  hand  against  every  man,  and 
every  man's  hand  against  him." 

Such  is  the  character  of  the  publicity  campaign  to  release  Ruef 
from  prison. 

490  When  in  1914  Governor  Johnson  became  candidate  for  re-elec- 
tion, extraordinary  efforts  were  made  to  compel  him  to  pardon,  or  to 
consent  to  the  release  of  Ruef  on  parole.  So  persistent  were  Ruef 
advocates,  that  the  Governor  found  It  necessary  to  issue  a  state- 
ment of  his  position  regarding  Ruef.  That  statement  will  be  foun(J 
in  full  on  page  xxviii  of  the  Appendix. 


454  Ruef s  Last  Refuge  Fails 

may  have  smuggled  sweets,  the  other  prisoner,  whose 
every  nerve-cell  shrieks  in  agony  for  cocaine,  but  who 
knows  he  will  be  thrown  in  the  dungeon  if  he  smug- 
gles it,  will  have  no  illusions  about  the  smuggling 
privilege.  If  the  very  minions  of  justice  do  injustice, 
as  between  Abe  Ruef  and  Convict  No.  231,323,  every 
man  in  that  vast  prison  will  be  taught  that  he  is  the 
victim  not  of  justice,  but  of  force  and  favoritism. 
And  if  Ruef,  at  the  expiration  of  a  bare  year,  were  to  be 
paroled  out,  every  other  convict,  whose  very  application 
can  not  be  heard  until  he  has  served  half  his  term, 
will  know  that  he  is  suffering  the  penalty,  not  of  his 
crime,  but  of  his  poverty  and  friendlessness.  Shall  Abe 
Ruef  be  suffered  to  teach  that  lesson?  Shall  he  cor- 
rupt San  Ouentin  prison  as  he  did  San  Francisco? 
Or  shall  there  be  at  last  one  place  found  where  even 
Abe  Ruef  gets  exact  and  equal  justice?" 

Ruef  is  getting  equal  justice  at  State  prison,  not  be- 
cause he  corrupted  San  Francisco,  not  because  a  jury 
of  twelve  citizens  found  him  guilty,  not  because  seven 
out  of  eleven  judges  declared  against  him,  but  because 
the  political  machine,  of  which  Ruef  was  one  of  the  most 
powerful  leaders,  has  been  broken  in  California.  Under 
the  old  order,  to  have  kept  Ruef  jailed  would  have  been 
impossible. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 
Conclusion. 

After  the  McCarthy-Fickert  election  there  were  ru- 
mors that  the  graft  defense,  flushed  with  its  successes 
in  the  overthrow  of  the  prosecution,  would  resort  to 
reprisals,  by  singling  out  persons  prominent  in  the 
movement  to  enforce  the  law,  for  trumped-up  charges 
and  possible  indictment.  But  aside  from  an  abortive 
attempt  to  make  it  appear  that  former  Supervisor 
Gallagher  had  fled  the  State  at  the  behest  of  William 
J.  Burns,  reprisals  of  this  nature  were  not  attempted. 

The  reprisals  came  in  more  subtle  form.  Members 
of  the  Oliver  Grand  Jury  which  had  brought  the  in- 
dictments against  Ruef  and  his  associates,  found  them- 
selves marked  men  in  business,  political  and  social  cir- 
cles. A  member  of  the  faculty  of  the  State  University 
who  had  been  active  in  defending  the  cause  of  the 
prosecution,  found  his  salary  remaining  practically 
stationary,  while  his  associates  received  material  ad- 
vances. When  the  directorate  of  the  Panama-Pacific 
International  Exposition  Company  was  formed,  finan- 
ciers who  had  supported  the  prosecution  found  them- 
selves barred  from  directorships.  It  may  be  said,  how- 
ever, that  the  graft  defense  was  well  represented,  one 
of  the  Exposition  directors  at  least,  Thornwall  Mul- 
lally,  having  been  one  of  those  indicted  in  the  graft 
cases. 


4S6 


Conclusion 


When  the  suggestion  was  made  that  James  D. 
Phelan  be  made  Pacific  Coast  representative  in  Presi- 
dent Wilson's  cabinet,  at  once  the  graft  defense  pack 
was  on  his  track,  openly  naming  Mr.  Phelan's  assist- 
ance to  the  prosecution  cause  as  reason  sufficient  why 
he   should   not   be   given   the    cabinet   appointment.*^^ 

On  the  other  hand,  all  danger  of  confinement  in 
State  prison  being  gone,  the  graft  defense,  through  its 
various  newspapers,  urged  incessantly  that  the  past  be 
forgotten,  that  San  Francisco  interests  get  together 
for  the  good  of  San  Francisco.  But  this  "getting  to- 
gether" meant  the  banishing  from  political,  social,  and, 
as  far  as  practical,  business  circles,  all  who  had  sided 
with  the  prosecution,  thereby  giving  control  of  all 
activities  to  sympathizers  with  the  graft  defense. 

This  is  well  recognized  throughout  the  State,  and 
the  exclusive  "get-together"  movements  are  received 
with   general   ridicule. *^^     The   graft  defense   does    not 


491  The  San  Francisco  Argonaut,  one  of  the  principal  apologists 
for  the  Graft  Defense,  in  its  issue  of  November  23,  1912,  said  of  the 
suggestion  of  Mr.  Phelan's  name  for  the  cabinet:  "Ex-Mayor 
Phelan,  of  San  Francisco,  would  be  in  line  for  cabinet  honors  if 
our  local  war  of  the  roses  were  not  so  recent  and  if  Its  unfragrant 
memories  and  resentments  could  be  set  aside.     But  this  is  not  yet." 

492  The  Fresno  Republican  in  its  issue  of  December  7,  1912,  pays 
the  following  tribute  to  the  graft  defense's  "get-together"  plans: 

"They  are  going  to  hold  a  'burn  the  hammer'  celebration  in  San 
Francisco  on  New  Year's  eve,  for  the  cremation  of  knocking. 

"It  is  a  good  idea,  and  one  worth  going  the  limit  on.  By  all 
means,  burn  the  hammers!  But  the  only  effectual  way  to  get  that 
done  is  for  each  fellow  to  burn  his  own.  Unfortunately,  when  we 
begin  knocking  the  knockers,  the  hammer  we  are  after  is  usually 
the  one  with  which  the  other  fellow  knocks  us.  There  is  no  boost- 
ing way  to  dispose  of  the  other  fellow's  hammer.  If  we  go  after  it, 
w^e  knock  it,  to  the  further  multiplication  of  knocking.  But  if  we 
begin  at  the  other  end,  with  our  own  hammer,  that  is  real  boosting. 
Besides,  it  gets  the  thing  done.  What  we  do  to  the  other  fellow's 
hammer  may  not  succeed,  and  if  it  does,  it  is  merely  more  knock- 
ing. But  when  we  burn  or  bury  our  own,  then  we  know  that  at 
least  our  part  of  the  knocking  is  ended. 

"The  purpose  of  the  'burn  the  hammer,'  or  'get-together,'  is,  of 


Conclusion  457 

stand  well  in  California.  The  "vindication"  that  was 
heralded  throughout  the  country  when  the  indictments 
were  dismissed  has  not  been  accepted  in  California  as 
generally  as  those  most  immediately  afifected  could 
have  wished. 

Then  again,  the  corporations  involved  in  the  scan- 
dals, have  a  heritage  from  the  graft  defense  which 
seems  destined  to  bring  confusion  upon  them  at  every 
turn  of  their  development.  Late  in  1912,  for  example, 
a  year  and  a  half  after  the  trolley-graft  indictments 
were  dismissed,  the  United  Railroads  attempted  re- 
adjustment of  its  bonded  indebtedness.  This  could  be 
done  only  with  the  consent  of  the  State  Railroad  Com- 
mission. The  Commission,  willing  to  allow  any  proper 
adjustment  upon  competent  showing,  asked  that  the 
corporation's  books  be  produced.  The  books  had,  dur- 
ing the  days  of  the  prosecution,  been  sent  out  of  the 
State.  The  United  Railroads  could  not  produce  the 
books,  and  consent  to  its  petition  to  readjust  its  finan- 
cial   affairs    was    withheld    until    the    books    should    be 


course,  to  bridge  the  breach  loft  by  the  Graft  Prosecutions.  And 
to  this  end  we  suggest  that 

"The  higher-ups  of  the  Pacific  Union  Club  give  a  dinner  at 
which  Francis  J.  Heney  and  Rudolph  Spreckels  are  the  guests  of 
honor. 

"The  directors  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition  elect  James  D. 
Phelan   one  of  their  number. 

"W^illiam  H.  Crocker  give  a  reception  to  such  members  of  the 
Oliver  grand  jury  as  have  survived  the  boycott. 

"The  San  Francisco  Post  issue  a  congratulatory  edition,  com- 
mending the  achievements  of  Governor  Johnson's  administration. 

"Patrick  Calhoun  offer  to  take  Abe  Ruef's  place  In  San  Quentin 
for  a  yeai-,  and  for  alternate  years  hereafter,  until  they  shall  both  be 
purged  or  pardoned  of  their  joint  guilt. 

"These  suggestions  are  all  purposely  addressed  to  the  side  which 
is  most  clamorous  for  'getting  together.'  Since  they  shout  the 
loudest  for  "harmony, '  presumably  th?y  are  the  ones  who  want  it. 
The  way  to  get  it  is  first  to  put  away  their  own  implements  of 
discord.  And  no  bettor  pledges  of  intent  to  do  this  could  be  con- 
ceived than  are  contained  in  the  suggestions  here  offered." 


458 


Conclusion 


forthcoming.  Unofficial  assurance  was  given  officials 
of  the  corporation  that  investigation  would  not  be  made 
of  its  graft  defense  expenditures, '*°^  nor  of  any  ex- 
penditures involved  in  the  scandal  of  the  alleged  bribe- 
giving.  But  apparently  even  this  assurance  did  not 
satisfy  those  connected  with  the  United  Railroads 
whose  reputations,  at  least,  were  at  stake. *^*     The  com- 

493  The  machine-free  press  of  the  State,  however,  openly  Insisted 
that  it  would  be  a  sood  thing  if  full  publicity  of  the  United  Rail- 
roads expenditures  could  be  had. 

"What  the  missing  books  might  contain  of  an  interesting  sort," 
said  Tlie  Sacramento  Bee  in  discussing  the  incident,  "may  be  gath- 
ered from  a  'list  of  expenses'  submitted  by  Calhoun  in  lieu  of  the 
books,  including  an  item  of  $314,000  to  Patrick  Calhoun  for  'services 
rendered.'  * 

"The  character  of  these  'services'  may  be  surmised  by  anybody 
familiar  with  the  history  of  the  recent  bribery  and  Graft  Prosecu- 
tions in  San  Francisco.  But  surely  the  public  and  the  stockholders 
and  creditors  of  the  United  Railroads  are  entitled  to  specifications. 

"It  is  largely  that  corporations  may  not  bribe  in  secure  secrecy, 
or  otherwise  commit  criminal  acts  without  detection,  that  the  Pro- 
gressive states  are  bringing  them  under  strict  regulation  and  in- 
spection by  proper  authority." 

494  Tlie  Railroad  Commission  of  California,  in  its  Decision  1536, 
made  May  22,  1914,  held  "that  the  methods  pursued  by  the  former 
officials  of  applicant  in  handling  the  funds  in  their  care  amounts  to 
nothing  more  than  a  fraud,  not  only  upon  the  public  forced  to  use 
an  inadequate  and  unserviceable  system,  but  upon  the  bond  and 
note   holders  of  such  company." 

Of  one  transaction,  in  which  President  Calhoun  was  permitted 
to  take  $1,096,000  of  the  company's  funds,  which  it  was  claimed  he 
had  invested  in  a  land  project  in  Solano,  in  which  Mr.  Calhoun  was 
interested,   the  Commission  said: 

"No  proof  was  made  to  this  Commission  that  any  part  of  this 
money  was  actually  invested  in  the  so-called  Solano  project,  but 
we  are  confronted  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Calhoun,  under  authority 
of  the  board  of  directors,  and  ratified  by  the  stockholders,  took 
from  the  treasury  of  applicant  $1,096,000,  and  whether  he  invested 
it  in  the  Solano  project  or  not  is  unimportant  in  the  consideration 
of  this  railroad  company  as  a  public  utility. 

"It  seems  that  upon  the  taking  of  office  by  Mr.  Jesse  Lilienthal, 
the  present  president  of  the  railroad  company,  Mr.  Calhoun  was 
forced  to  execute  a  promissory  note  for  $1,096,000,  payable  one  day 
after  date,  in  favor  of  the  railroad  company,  secured  by  stock  of 
the  Solano  project;  but  the  judgment  of  the  value  of  this  promis- 
sory note  is  perliaps  best  indicated  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lilienthal 
immediately  wrote  this  note  down  in  the  books  of  the  company  as 
of  a  value  of  $1.00. 

"We  hesitate  to  put  in  words  a  proper  characterization  of  this 
transaction.  In  plain  terms,  Mr.  Calhoun  took  from  the  funds  of 
tliis  public  utility  corporation  over  $1,000,000,  when  every  available 
dollar  was  sorely  needed  properly  to  increase  the  facilities  of  this 
company  so  as  to  .serve  the  communitj'  of  San  Francisco,  and  at  a 


Conclusion  459 

pany's  books  were  not  opened  for  the  Commission's 
inspection. 

By  far  the  greatest  sufferer  from  the  graft  defense 
was  San  Francisco.  Here  it  was  demonstrated  that 
even  with  a  District  Attorney  intent  upon  the  discharge 
of  his  sworn  duty,  with  upright  trial  judges  on  the 
bench,  the  machinery  of  the  criminal  law  broke  down 
when  men  with  practically  unlimited  means  were 
brought  to  bar.  To  accomplish  this  required  a  four 
years'  contest,  in  which  community  resistance  to  po- 
lical  corruption  was  overcome,  the  people  misled,  their 
minds  poisoned  against  that  which  is  wholesome,  and 
made  tolerant  of  that  which  is  base  and  bad. 

The  unhappy  effects  of  this  are  just  beginning  to 
be  understood.  The  evil  of  the  graft  defense  will  live 
long  in  San  Francisco  after  the  dismissal  of  the  indict- 
ments. Four  years  after  the  defeat  of  the  Graft  Prose- 
cution, Referendum  petitions  against  State  laws  have 
been  forged  in  San  Francisco,  and  the  laws,  which  had 
been  passed  by  the  State  Legislature  and  signed  by  the 
Governor,  have  been  delayed  from  going  into  effect 
for  nearly  two  years,  because  of  the  forgeries.  And 
yet,  although  the  forgers  are  known,  their  prosecution, 
except  in  one  instance,  has  not  even  been  attempted. 
Governor  Johnson  has  called  the  attention  of  the  Attor- 
ney-General of  the  State  to  this  condition,  and  has 
urged  him  to  undertake  the  prosecution  of  tliese  forgery 
cases. 

time  when  this  same  company  was  urging  upon  this  Commission 
the  necessity  of  issuing  further  Isonds  to  pay  off  maturing  obliga- 
tions, and  also  at  a  time  when  admittedly  the  outstanding  obliga- 
tions could  not  be  paid  at  maturity  by  approximately  $20,000,000." 

This  enormous  sum  had  been  taken  in  gold  at  various  times, 
ranging  in  amounts  from  $250  to  $85,000. 


460  Conclusion 

Tenderloin  interests  at  San  Francisco  now  indicate 
even  greater  power  in  the  community  than  they  exerted 
during  the  worst  days  of  Ruef-Schmitz  regime.  The 
same  is  in  a  measure  true  of  the  public  service  cor- 
porations. 

When  District  Attorney  Langdon  announced  in  1906 
that  public-spirited  citizens  would  assist  in  meeting  the 
expenses  of  running  to  earth  the  corruptionists  that 
had  San  Francisco  by  the  throat,  prospect  of  law-en- 
forcement through  the  regular  channels  was  welcomed, 
and  ugly  talk  of  lynch-law  prevalent  at  the  time,  ceased. 
The  success  of  the  graft  defense  meant  that  the  efforts 
to  reach  the  corrupters  of  the  municipal  government 
through  the  courts  had  failed.  San  Francisco  was 
beaten.  In  the  community's  present  inability  to  pro- 
tect itself  against  the  encroachments  of  the  public 
service  corporations,  and  to  correct  vice  conditions 
which  are  far  worse  than  in  the  worst  days  of  the 
Schmitz-Ruef  regime,  the  effects  of  that  beating  are 
seen.  San  Francisco  will  be  long  in  recovering  from 
the  effects  of  her  defeat.  Because  of  the  results  of  it, 
she  finds  herself  handicapped  in  her  race  for  Pacific 
Coast  supremacy  with  Los  Angeles,  Seattle  and  even 
Oakland.  And  the  prospects  are  at  the  close  of  the 
year  1914,  that  the  burden  of  this  handicap  will  be 
increased  before  it  is  diminished.  In  the  old  days  an 
invading  army  conquered  a  city  and  sacked  it.  The 
System  conquered  San  Francisco  and  is  exploiting  it. 

The  defeat  of  the  graft  prosecution  was  a  defeat  for 
San  Francisco  alone.  It  v.'as  not  a  defeat  for  the  State 
of  California. 


Conclusion  461 

The  evil  influence  of  the  graft  defense  did  not 
reach  beyond  the  metropoHs.  On  the  contrary,  the  suc- 
cess of  the  defense  uncovered  for  the  whole  State  the 
actual  political  conditions  under  which  all  California 
was  laboring. 

The  registration  of  47,945  l-iepublicans  at  San  Fran- 
cisco to  defeat  Heney  at  the  primaries,  and  the  Re- 
publican vote  of  13,766  at  the  final  election,  demon- 
strated the  emptiness  of  partisan  pretense.  One  of  the 
immediate  results  was  a  uniting  of  all  good  citizens 
regardless  of  political  afifiliations  for  good  government, 
and  Hiram  W.  Johnson,  Heney's  associate  in  the 
graft  trials,  was  in  1910,  elected  Governor  of  California. 
Four  years  later,  James  D.  Phelan,  Rudolph  Spreckels's 
associate  in  financing  the  graft  prosecution,  was  elected 
United  States  Senator  from  California,  while  Judge 
Lawlor  was  that  year  elected  to  the  State  Supreme 
Bench.  Judge  Dunne  was  in  1914  re-elected  to  the 
Superior  Bench  to  serve  until  1920. 

Decisions  from  the  higher  courts — to  the  lay  mind 
astonishing;  to  authorities  on  questions  of  law,  vicious 
and  unwarranted — which  set  free  men  who  had  been 
convicted  of  dangerous  felonies ;  scandals  which  grew 
out  of  these  decisions ;  the  public's  demonstrated  help- 
lessness against  them,  aroused  the  State.  By  over- 
whelming vote  California  added  to  her  Constitution  a 
provision  under  which  The  People  may  by  direct  vote 
remove  a  corrupt  or  incompetent  judge  from  the 
bench. 

The  public  had  assumed  that  men  trapped  in  bribe- 
giving  would  be  measured  by  a  fixed  rule  of  the  law. 


462  Conclusion 

and  their  proper  punishment  in  due  course  be  meted 
out  to  them.  That  anything  else  could  be  had  not 
occurred  to  the  average  citizen. 

But  the  astonishing  performances  at  the  graft  trials, 
the  extraordinary  anti-prosecution  publicity  campaign, 
and,  finally,  the  amazing  technical  defense,  and  the 
failure  of  the  graft  defendants  to  take  the  stand  and 
manfully  deny  under  oath  the  charges  brought  against 
them,  opened  the  eyes  of  the  public  to  the  fact  that 
the  methods  of  criminal  procedure  were  sadly  inade- 
quate. 

And  the  further  fact  was  emphasized  that  while 
the  weak  points  in  the  methods  of  bringing  an  of- 
fender to  punishment  could  be  used  to  advantage  by 
the  rich  man,  they  were  unavailable  to  the  man  without 
the  means  to  employ  a  lawyer  to  present  the  techni- 
calities  governing   his   case. 

Out  of  this  conviction,  came  agitation  for  reform 
'  of  the  methods  of  criminal  procedure.  An  elaborate 
plan  for  such  reform  was  presented  to  the  1909  Legis- 
lature.*''^ But  the  machine  element  controlled  the  com- 
mittee organization  of  both  houses,  and  the  measures 
were  defeated. 

At  the  1911  session  of  the  Legislature,  after  John- 
son had  been  elected  Governor,  measures  for  the  re- 
form of  the  criminal  procedure  similar  to  those  defeated 
by  indirection  at  the  1909  session,  were  introduced. 
Many  of  them  became  laws.  But,  unfortunately,  certain 
labor  leaders   were  made  to  believe  that  the  measures 

495  These  measures  are  de.scrlbed  in  "The  Story  of  the  California 
Legislature  of  1909."  The  methods  employed  to  defeat  them  were 
told  in  detail.  See  chapter  "Defeat  of  the  Commonwealth  Club 
Bills." 


Conclusion  463 

were  aimed  at  Labor.  This  led  to  opposition  which 
resuhed  in  the  defeat  of  several  of  the  proposed  re- 
forms. 

One  important  constitutional  amendment  was,  how- 
ever, presented  to  the  people  that  goes  far  toward  cor- 
recting the  abuses  which  attended  the  graft  trials. 
This  amendment  provides  that  "no  judgment  shall  be 
set  aside,  or  new  trial  granted  in  any  criminal  case 
on  the  ground  of  misdirection  of  the  jury  or  the 
improper  admission  or  rejection  of  evidence,  or  for 
error  as  to  any  matter  of  pleading  or  procedure,  un- 
less, after  an  examination  of  the  entire  cause  in- 
cluding the  evidence,  the  court  shall  be  of  the  opinion 
that  the  error  comjilained  of  has  resulted  in  a  miscar- 
riage of  justice." 

•  Not  a  vote  was  cast  against  this  amendment  in 
either  house  of  the  Legislature.  The  feeling  against 
the  use  of  tritling  technicalities  for  the  release  of  con- 
victed criminals  which  the  graft  cases  had  displayed  so 
glaringly,  was  shown  in  the  popular  vote  on  this  amend- 
ment :  195,449  voted  for  the  amendment,  while  only 
53,958  voted  against  it.*^*^ 

The  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution  succeeded  in 
sending   but    one    of    the    corrupters    of    the    municipal 

496  Under  the  provisions  of  measures  wiiich  became  laws  at  tlie 
1911  session,  it  is  lield  that  it  will  be  impossible  hereafter  to  put 
grand  jurors  on  trial  as  was  done  in  the  San  Francisco  graft  cases. 
Hereafter,  too,  an  indictment  or  information  may  be  amended  by 
the  District  Attorney  without  leave  of  the  Court  at  any  time  be- 
fore the  defendant  plead-s;  and  at  any  time  thereafter  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Court  where  it  can  be  done  without  prejudice  to  the 
substantial  rights  of  the  defendant. 

Another  measure  takes  from  a  witness  his  privilege  of  refusing 
to  give  testimony  on  tlie  grounds  that  it  may  incriminate  liim.  The 
witness  is  safeguarded,  however,  by  a  provision  tliat  he  shall  not 
be  liable  thereafter  to  prosecution  nor  punishment  with  respect  to 
the  offense   regarding  which  such   testimony  is  given. 


464  Conclusion 

government  to  State  prison.  He,  too,  would  in  all 
probability  have  escaped  imprisonment  but  for  the  ab- 
sence from  the  State  of  a  single  member  of  the  Supreme 
Court  at  a  critical  moment. 

But  the  graft  prosecution  did  something  infinitely 
more  important  than  the  sending  of  a  few  corruptionists 
to  cell  and  stripes.  It  awakened  a  State  to  its  help- 
lessness against  a  corrupt  system.  The  People  arose 
in  rebellion  against  the  "System,"  and  is  laboring  to 
throw  the  "System"  off. 

In  1910  and  1911  a  political  revolution  was  worked 
in   California. 

But  the  revolution  had  its  beginning  back  in  1906, 
when  Rudolph  Spreckels  guaranteed  the  expenses  of 
the  prosecution  of  the  corrupters  of  the  municipal 
government  of  San  Francisco,  and  Francis  J.  Heney, 
as  his  share  in  the  campaign,  pledged  his  services. 

Had  there  been  no  San  Francisco  graft  prosecution, 
there  would,  in  1910,  have  been  no  successful  political 
uprising  in  California.  Hiram  W.  Johnson  would  not 
have  been  a  candidate  for  Governor.  The  accomplished 
reforms  which  are  the  boast  of  the  State,  and  the 
models  which  other  States  are  adopting,  would  still 
be  the  unrealized  dreams  of  "reformers."  The  "Sys- 
tem"  would   still  be   in  the   saddle. 

The  graft  defense  has  left  its  mark  of  ill  upon 
San  Francisco.  That  city  has  borne  the  brunt  of  the 
injury  because  of  it. 

The  graft  prosecution,  by  forcing  the  "System"  out 
in  the  open,  where  all  its  power  for  evil  can  be  seen, 
worked  California  inestimable  good.  And  here,  San 
Francisco,  in  common  with  the  whole  State,  gains  also. 


APPENDIX 


JUDGE    LAWLOR'S    RULING    ON    MOTION    TO    DIS- 
MISS   GRAFT    CASES,   AUGUST   3,    1910. 

On  April  25th,  1910,  an  application  was  made  by  Pat- 
rick Calhoun,  Tirey  L.  Ford,  Thornwell  Mullally  and  Wil- 
liam M.  Abbott  to  dismiss  the  indictments  against  them. 
The  application  is  before  the  Court  at  this  time  for  con- 
sideration. 

When  the  defendants  pleaded  not  guilty  they  exercised 
their  statutory  right  and  each  demanded  severance  from 
each  other  and  from  their  co-defendants,  Abraham  Ruef 
and  Eugene  E.  Schmitz.  (Sec.  1098  Penal  Code.)  There 
have  been  five  trials — three  of  Tirey  L.  Ford  and  one  each 
of  Abraham   Ruef  and   Patrick   Calhoun. 

The  second  trial  of  Patrick  Calhoun  was  commenced 
on  July  19th,  1909  (case  No.  1437).  Owing  to  the  illness 
of  one  of  his  counsel  the  trial  was  suspended  on  August 
16th,  1909,  and  resumed  on  September  30th,  1909.  On  the 
following  day  the  trial  was  ordered  continued  until  Novem- 
ber 15th,  1909,  on  motion  of  the  defendant,  upon  the  ground 
of  the   pendencj'  of  a  municipal  campaign. 

On  January  8th,  1910,  Mr.  Charles  M.  Fickert  assumed 
the  office  of  District  Attorney'. 

On  February  7th,  1910,  the  District  Attorney  moved  the 
Court  to  dismiss  the  remaining  charges  against  these  de- 
fendants (Sec.  1385  Penal  Code),  which  motion  was  by  the 
Court  ordered  denied.  (Sec.  7,  Art.  I,  and  Sec.  19,  Art.  VI 
of  the  Constitution;  Sees.  1041,  1042,  1126,  1385,  1386  and 
1387  Penal   Code.) 

On  February  14th,  1910,  the  parties  announced  that 
they  were  ready  to  resume  the  trial  in  case  No.  1437  against 
Patrick  Calhoun,  but  the  Court  continued  the  case  for  trial 
until  February  17th,  1910.  On  the  last  named  day  the 
cause  was  ordered  continued  for  trial  until  April  25th,  1910. 

On  April  25th,  1910,  the  four  defendants  interposed  a 
motion  to  dismiss  the  remaining  indictments  against  them. 
The  further  hearing  of  the  motion  was  continued  until 
July  29th.  1910.  On  the  latter  day  the  causes  were  con- 
tinued until   this  time. 

Two  things  are  chiefly  responsible  for  the  Court's  action 
in  respect  to  the  remaining  indictments  since  the  District 
Attorney  moved  to  dismiss  them  on  Februarj'  7th,  1910 — 
first,  the  Court's  apprehensions  based  on  the  declared  atti- 
tude of  the  said  District  Attorney  toward  the  remaining 
indictments,    and,    second,    the    absence    from    the    State    of 


11 

James  L.  Gallagher,  a  material  and  indispensable  witness 
in  the  said  causes.  The  second  reason  will  now  be  con- 
sidered. 

It  was  the  theory  of  the  People  in  the  live  trials  re- 
ferred to  that  Abraham  Ruef  represented  the  defendants  in 
the  alleged  bribery  of  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors, and  that  James  L.  Gallagher,  one  of  its  members, 
in  turn  represented  Abraham  Ruef  in  the  transactions.  In 
this  way  the  Court  is  able  to  determine  that  the  testimon}' 
of  this  witness  is  material,  and  now  holds,  as  a  matter  of 
law,  that  unless  additional  testimony  is  produced,  it  is  in- 
dispensable  to   the  establishment  of  the   res   gestae. 

In  the  early  part  of  December,  1909,  it  became  known 
that  the  witness  had  departed  from  the  State.  Up  to  the 
present  time  it  has  not  been  shown  whether  he  had  been 
formally  subpoenaed  or  was  otherwise  under  the  authority 
of  the  Court  to  appear  as  a  witness  in  the  trials  of  the 
remaining  indictments.  If  he  is  subject  to  the  authority 
of  the  Court  in  any  of  these  cases  his  absence  would  con- 
stitute a  criminal  contempt,  and  he  could  be  extradited 
from  any  other  State  having  provisions  of  law  similar  to 
those  of  this  State.  (Sub.  4,  Sec.  166,  and  Sec.  1548  Penal 
Code.) 

In  this  connection  it  may  be  proper  to  point  out  that 
practically  ever  since  issue  was  joined  on  these  indictments 
they  have  been  on  the  calendar  for  trial,  and  that  during 
the  trials  referred  to  the  cases  not  actually  on  trial  were 
from  time  to  time  called  and  the  witnesses  admonished  by 
the  Court  to  appear  on  the  deferred  date.  But  it  has  not 
been  ascertained  whether  on  this  manner  the  missing  wit- 
ness has  been  so  admonished  to  appear  so  far  as  the  re- 
maining indictments   are   concerned. 

In  the  month  of  January,  1910,  the  Court  directed  that 
all  persons  who  could  give  testimony  concerning  the  ab- 
sence of  the  witness  be  subpoenaed.  On  January  24th, 
1910,  the  first  hearing  was  had,  and  on  several  occasions 
thereafter  witnesses  have  been  orally  examined  on  the  sub- 
ject. From  this  oral  testimony  it  is  difficult  to  determine 
the  intentions  of  the  witness  concerning  his  departure  from 
and  his  return  to  the  State.  It  seems  that  in  the  latter 
part  of  November,  1909,  he  left  for  Europe,  accompanied 
by  his  wife.  Robert  F.  Gallagher,  a  brother  of  the  wit- 
ness, testified  in  effect  that  the  witness  never  stated  he 
intended  to  absent  himself  as  a  witness  in  the  graft  cases 
and  made  no  suggestion  of  that  nature;  that  he,  Robert  F. 
Gallagher,  gained  no  such  impression  from  anything  he 
did  say,  except  that  it  was  a  disagreeable  situation  for  him 
to    be   a   witness;    and    that   their    talk    proceeded    along    the 


Ill 

line  that  there  was  not  going  to   be  any  future   trial   in   the 
graft  prosecution.     This  brother  testified    further: 

"He  did  state  on  one  occasion  sonietliing  to  the  effect 
that  Burns  had  disappeared  and  that  Heney  had  disappeared 
and  that  there  wasn't  any  prosecution;  that  the  incoming 
District  Attorney  would  not  certainly  be  in  earnest  in  the 
prosecution." 

Other  witnesses  testified  to  a  variety  of  facts  touching 
the  departure  of  the  witness  from  San  Francisco  and  his 
declarations  on  the  general  subject.  Dr.  Alexander  War- 
ner gave  testimony  to  the  effect  that  he  went  to  Europe 
on  an  Atlantic  steamer  with  the  witness  and  his  wife. 
Thomas  J.  Gallagher,  another  brother,  among  other  things 
quoted  the  witness  to  the  effect  that  he  was  going  to 
Europe,  that  he  might  settle  in  an  eastern  State,  that  he 
made  no  secret  of  his  purpose,  and  that  William  J.  Burns, 
special  agent  of  the  former  administration  in  the  Dis- 
trict Attorney's  office,  knew  of  his  intention  to  leave. 
Nothing  definite  appears  in  the  oral  showing  concerning 
his  intentions  on  the  subject  of  his  return,  and  so  far  as 
that  showing  is  concerned  the  point  is  more  or  less  in- 
volved in  conjecture.  But  on  July  29th,  1910,  Frederick 
L.  Berry,  the  Assistant  District  Attorne3%  assigned  to  this 
department  of  the  Court,  filed  an  affidavit  embodying  clip- 
pings from  the  local  newspapers  of  the  previous  month, 
w^hich  state  that  the  witness  was,  at  the  time  the  articles 
were  written,  in  Vancouver,  B.  C.  From  these  clippings 
it  appears  that  the  witness  intended  to  permanentl)'  locate 
in  Vancouver.  The  only  tangible  evidence  from  the  wit- 
ness himself,  however,  is  found  in  his  letter  to  Thomas 
J.  Gallagher  under  date  of  June  29th,  1910,  in  which  this 
excerpt  appears: 

"In  reply  to  your  inquiry  I  cannot  state  when  I  shall 
return   to   San   Francisco,   if   at   all.     I   may   remain   here." 

In  my  judgment  a  review  of  the  showing  up  to  this 
time  leads  to  the  inference  that  the  witness  left  this  juris- 
diction and  is  remaining  away  because  of  some  form  of 
understanding  or  agreement.  The  circumstances  under 
which  he  left  California  clearly  show  that  he  was  acting 
guardedly,  notwithstanding  the  testimony,  which  there  is 
no  reason  to  douI)t,  that  he  informed  several  persons  of 
his  intention  to  take  a  trip.  When  the  quoted  statement 
of  Robert  F.  Gallagher  was  first  made  I  was  disposed  to 
assume  that  the  witness  left  the  State  principally  because 
he  believed  the  prosecution  was  a.t  an  end,  and  that  he 
made  his  plans  quietly  so  that  the  step  would  not  occa- 
sion comment.  In  oirier  words,  that  he  did  not  believe 
there    would    be    any    further   attempt    to    prosecute    the    so- 


IV 

called  graft  cases.  But  from  a  study  of  the  entire  show- 
ing- I  cannot  adhere  to  that  theory.  I  repeat  that  up  to 
the  time  his  presence  was  discovered  in  Vancouver,  the 
showing  was  uncertain  as  to  whether  he  really  intended  to 
return  to  California,  and  if  so,  when  he  would  return.  It 
was  to  be  seen  that  the  action  of  the  Court  would  be  in- 
fluenced by  this  uncertainty,  so  when  the  exigencies  of 
the  situation  called  for  a  definite  showing  as  to  the  wit- 
ness' intentions,  he  seems  to  suddenly  appear  in  Vancou- 
ver, where,  under  the  treaty  conditions,  he  would  be  safe 
from  extradition,  and  is  promptly  discovered  by  the  re- 
porter of  a  New  York  paper.  In  the  clippings  his  quoted 
statements  on  the  subject  of  his  intentions  are  unequivocal. 
He  is  to  make  his  home  in  Vancouver.  But  his  personal 
communication  to  Thomas  J.  Gallagher,  already  referred 
to,  which  he  probably  realized  would  be  produced  in  Court, 
is  significant  in  tenor  and  he  is  apparently  less  certain  of 
his  intentions.  This  would  tend  to  make  his  future  action 
consistent  should  he  hereafter  return  to  California.  From 
the  entire  showing  I  do  not  entertain  any  serious  doubt  as 
to  what  his  real  purpose  is.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that 
when  the  necessity  for  his  presence  as  a  witness  has  passed 
he  will  return.  To  entertain  any  other  view,  or  be  in 
serious  doubt  on  the  point,  is  to  ignore  the  inherent  prob- 
abilities of  the  showing  and  to  deny  a  fair  consideration 
to   the   known   history   of   this   litigation. 

Now,  it  must  follow  that  if  the  witness  has  left  and  is 
remaining  away  from  the  State  because  of  an  arrangement 
of  some  nature  aflfecting  these  cases,  the  responsibility  for 
his  absence  should  be  placed  where  it  belongs.  On  April 
25th,   1910,   the   District   Attorney   stated   to   the    Court: 

" .  .  .  and  it  appearing  also  that  James  L.  Gallagher 
left  with  the  consent  and  connivance  of  those  who  had 
preceded  me  in  office,  I  at  this  time  do  not  wish  to  as- 
sume any  responsibility  for  his  disappearance.  Whether 
he  shall  return  or  not  T  cannot  say.  Some  of  the  wit- 
nesses who  were  called  here  testified  that  he  went  away 
with  the  intent  and  with  the  purpose  of  embarrassing  my 
administration  and  that  he  was  supposed  to  keep  away  until 
such   time  as   certain   persons  would   request  his  return.    .    ." 

The  foregoing  fairly  states  the  position  of  the  District 
Attorney  on  this  point,  as  repeatedly  expressed  in  Court 
since  he  first  moved  the  dismissal  of  these  indictments.  If 
the  charge  that  the  former  administration  entered  into  a 
bargain  with  the  witness  to  default  be  true,  there  would 
be  no  alternative  but  to  dismiss  the  indictments  without 
delay.  But  I  have  found  no  evidence  in  the  showing  tend- 
ing to   support  so  grave  a  charge,   and  upon  sound   reason- 


ing  it  would  seem  to  be  opposed  to  every  reasonable 
probability.  According  to  the  showing,  William  J.  Burns 
left  the  State  about  three  weeks  in  advance  of  the  witness, 
and,  so  far  as  the  Court  is  advised,  he  has  not  since  been 
in  the  State.  That  the  former  administration  maj^  have 
distrusted  the  official  intentions  of  the  District  Attorney 
toward  these  indictments  miglit  be  assumed  from  all  the 
surrounding  circumstances.  But  it  does  not  seem  probable 
that  the  former  administration  would  induce  a  material  and 
indispensable  witness  to  leave  the  State  and  thereby  make 
it  easy  for  the  District  Attorney  to  secure  a  result  which 
otherwise  might  entail  serious  embarrassment.  So  far  as 
the  showing  is  concerned  there  is  no  tangible  proof  tend- 
ing to  support  the  charge  of  the  District  Attorney,  nor 
is   there  any  proof  which   would  justify  such  an   inference. 

Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  do  I  find  any  formal  evidence 
in  the  showing  which  tends  to  bring  the  responsibility  for 
the  disappearance  of  the  witness  home  to  these  defendants. 
In  the  absence  of  tangible  proof  neither  side  should  be 
charged  with  so  grave  an  act.  But  if  there  has  been  com- 
plicity on  the  part  of  either  of  the  parties,  every  effort 
should  be  made  before  disposing  of  these  cases  finally  to 
establish  the  facts.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  if  the 
former  administration  entered  into  a  bargain  with  the  wit- 
ness looking  to  his  absence,  the  application  should  be 
granted  without  delay.  And  clearly,  if  the  defendants  are 
responsible  for  the  absence  of  the  witness,  under  a  famil- 
iar maxim  of  the  law,  the  application  should  be  promptly 
denied.      (Sec.  3517   Civil   Code.) 

There  being  no  tangible  proof,  therefore,  before  the 
Court,  of  the  complicity  of  the  parties,  should  the  pending 
application    be   granted   at   this   time? 

A  person  accused  of  crime  is  entitled  to  a  speedy  trial. 
(Sec.  13.  Art.   I,  Const.) 

This  fundamental  right  has  been  made  the  subject  of 
statutory  provision.  The  second  subdivision  of  Section  1382 
of  the   Penal   Code  provides  that: 

"Unless  good  cause  to  the  contrary  is  shown,  the  court 
must  order  the  prosecution  to  be  dismissed  if  the  indict- 
ment is  not  brought  to  trial  within  sixty  days  after  the 
filing  thereof." 

More  than  sixty  days  have  run  in  favor  of  this  applica- 
tion, and  the  question  presented  at  this  time  is  whether 
the  showing  touching  the  absence  of  James  L.  Gallagher 
shall  constitute  "good  cause"  within  the  meaning  of  the 
law.  This  term  must  be  construed  and  applied  according 
to    the   peculiar   circumstances    of   each    case.      It    should    be 


VI 

interpreted  so  that  the  rights  of  both  parties  shall  be 
equally  recognized.  The  absence  of  a  material  and  indis- 
pensable witness  for  the  People  would,  under  proper  cir- 
cumstances, constitute  good  cause,  provided  that  good  faith 
and  diligence  are  shown  in  the  effort  to  produce  the  wit- 
ness. In  re  Bcrgerow  (133  Cal.,  349)  is  a  leading  authority 
on  this  question  and  is  almost  invariably  cited  in  support 
of  applications  of  this  character.  It  is  proper  to  point  out 
that  in  the  prevailing  opinion  the  Court  studiously  elim- 
inates from  the  pertinency  of  the  authority  the  absence  or 
illness   of  a   witness   for   the   prosecution. 

The  conclusion  I  have  reached  is  that  under  the  law, 
and  the  surrounding  circumstances,  including  the  recent 
action  of  the  witness,  that  another  reasonable  continuance 
should  be  directed  in  order,  if  possible,  that  the  duty  of 
the  Court  in  the  premises  shall  be  rendered  more  clear. 
At  this  time  the  Court  is  not  satisfied  that  the  relief  sought 
should  be  granted.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  realized  that 
a  final  decision  should  not  much  longer  be  delayed.  In  the 
determination  of  this  matter  the  Court,  while  fully  recog- 
nizing the  rights  of  the  defendants,  is  mindful  of  the  rights 
of  the  People  and  its  own  sense  of  responsibility,  and  is 
anxious  to  avoid  a  decision  which  will  serve  as  a  mischie- 
vous precedent. 

It  is  idle  to  attempt  to  ignore  the  inherent  probabilities 
of  the  situation  presented.  A  material  and  indispensable 
witness  is  absent  from  the  State,  and  the  Court  is  called 
upon  to  intervene  because  the  District  Attorney  has  at 
practically  every  turn  followed  the  lead  of  these  defend- 
ants. Through  the  influence  of  unusual  agencies  the  law 
has  broken  down,  so  far  as  these  cases  are  concerned.  The 
crimes  charged  are  of  the  most  serious  nature,  because 
such  criminal  activity  tends  to  sap  the  very  foundations  of 
government.  The  statute  of  limitations  has  run  against 
these  charges  and  if  the  application  is  granted,  therefore, 
there  can  be  no  further  prosecution,  no  matter  what  de- 
velopments may  follow.  (Sec.  800  Penal  Code.)  In  the 
trial  of  Patrick  Calhoun  the  Court  admitted  evidence  of 
a  most  extraordinary  character  on  the  theory  of  the  People 
that  it  tended  to  show  guilty  consciousness  on  the  part  of 
the  accused.  This  evidence  was  not  contraverted.  It  in- 
cluded the  dynamiting  of  the  home  of  the  witness  under 
circumstances  which  threatened  not  only  his  life,  but  also 
the  lives  of  several  other  persons.  A  certain  other  build- 
ing, the  propertv  of  the  witness,  was  subsequently  blown 
up  by  the  use  of  dvnamite.  If  the  apparent  design  on  the 
life  of  the  v/Ilness  had  been  successful,  the  Court  would  be 
less  perplexed  in  deciding  a  question   of  this   character.     It 


Vll 

is  possible  that  these  experiences  and  not  the  suc^gested 
arrangement  with  the  witness  are  responsible  for  his  ab- 
sence. The  evidence  also  included  an  effort  to  suppress 
testimony  by  an  attempt  to  induce  a  witness  to  leave  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  and  other  matters  of  a  serious 
nature. 

And,  finally,  while  the  Court  is  clear  that  it  should  not 
base  any  action  at  this  time  upon  the  assumption  that 
either  side  is  responsible  for  the  absence  of  the  witness, 
yet  reason  and  the  exercise  of  a  sound  discretion  dictate 
that  the  Court  should  act  with  prudence.  Before  the  in- 
dictments should  be  finallj-  disposed  of,  every  reasonable 
effort  should  be  made  to  get  at  the  truth  of  the  situation. 
The  disposition  of  grave  charees  other  than  on  their 
merits  is  not  to  be  encouraged  and  should  not  be  allowed, 
except  in  the  face  of  a  strict  legal  necessity.  Let  the  cases 
be  continued  until  10  a.  m.,  Monday,  August  29th,  1910. 
So   ordered. 


HOW    THE   SUPERVISORS    WERE    BRIBED. 

Thomas  F.  Lonergan,  when  elected  to  the  Schmitz-Ruef 
Board  of  Supervisors,  was  a  driver  of  a  bakery  wagon. 
He  recited  at  the  trial  of  The  People  vs.  Louis  Glass,  the 
manner  in  which  he  had  been  bribed  by  agents  of  the 
Pacific  States  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company.  Loner- 
gan's  testimony  was  as  follows: 

"I  reside  in  Sanchez  street,  San  Francisco.  I  have 
lived  in  San  Francisco  since  March,  1879.  I  have  a  family 
composed  of  a  wife  and  three  children.  I  was  in  the  bakerj^ 
business.  I  was  in  that  business  quite  a  number  of  years. 
I  worked  latterly'  for  Mr.  Foley.  I  worked  in  a  bake  shop 
quite  a  while  and  also  drove  a  wagon  for  him.  I  do  not 
hold  any  official  position  now.  I  did  hold  the  position  of 
Supervisor  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco.  I 
was  elected  Supervisor  in  November,  1905,  and  took  office 
on  January  7th  or  8th,  1906.  I  know  John  Kraus.  I  first 
met  him  some  time  after  my  election  at  my  home.  I  did 
not  invite    him   to  come   there. 

"One  morning,  some  time  after  my  election,  the  doorbell 
rang,  a  gentleman  was  at  the  door  and  wanted  to  see  me. 
I  went  downstairs.  He  asked  me  if  I  was  Mr.  Lonergan. 
I  said  yes.  He  says.  'The  recently  elected  Supervisor?'  or 
words  to  that  effect.  I  said  yes.  He  says,  T  don't  think 
you    are    the    man    I    wanted.      I    came    out    here    from    the 


VIU 


East  a  few  years  back  with  a  Mr.  Lonergan,  and  I  thought 
he  was  the  one  that  might  have  been  elected.'  I  said,  'No, 
you  are  mistaken,  it  is  the  other  one,'  or  something  like 
that.  He  then  incidentally  told  me  he  was  connected  with 
the  Pacific  States  Telephone  Company,  and  would  be  pleased 
to  take  me  around  their  works  at  any  time  that  I  would 
find  it  convenient.  I  answered  him  as  well  as  I  recall  now, 
that  I  possibly  would  take  it  in  some  time.  I  subsequently 
went  to  the  telephone  company's  office.  To  the  best  of 
my  recollection  I  saw  Mr.  Kraus  in  the  meantime  before 
going  there,  and  made  an  appointment  with  him.  I  don't 
well  remember  meeting  him  at  the  telephone  company's 
office.  I  think  where  I  met  him  was  on  the  corner  of 
Mason  and  Market  or  Powell  and  Market,  one  or  the 
other,  around  there.  That  was  by  appointment.  Then  I 
went  with  him  to  the  telephone  company's  plant  on  Bush 
street,  I  think,  out  in  the  Western  Addition  at  that  time. 
He  took  me  through  the  works,  showing  me  the  works  and 
the  arrangements  in  connection  with  it,  and  how  they 
treated  their  help,  and  stated  to  me  they  were  installing 
another  new  plant,  I  forget  now  whether  it  was  one  or 
two  or  more.  After  we  left  there  I  had  lunch  with  Mr. 
Kraus.  I  don't  well  remember  where.  He  spoke  about  an 
opposition  company  in  that  talk.  The  opposition  company 
was  spoken  of,  considering  the  appliances  they  had,  and 
the  amount  of  work  they  were  then  doing,  and  the  new 
switchboards  they  would  put  in,  that  it  didn't  appear  neces- 
sary to  have  an  opposition  company  here.  Mr.  Kraus  paid 
for   the   lunch,   I   believe. 

"I  am  acquainted  with  Mr.  T.  V.  Halsey.  I  first  met 
him,  I  think,  either  on  Pine  or  Bush  street,  to  the  best  of 
my  recollection.  I.  N.  Copus  introduced  me  to  him.  To 
the  best  of  my  recollection  it  was  some  time  after  meeting 
Kraus  and  before  I  took  office  as  Supervisor.  That  m.eeting 
was  by  appointment.  Mr.  Copus  made  the  appointment  I 
believe.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  that  was  my  first 
meeting  with  Mr.  Halsey.  I  think  I  was  introduced  to  him 
by  Mr.  Copus  at  the  time  and  place  of  the  meeting.  We 
adjourned  to  lunch  at  a  restaurant  that  we  were  standing 
in  front  of.  We  went  upstairs  in  the  restaurant,  had  some 
lunch.  Nothing  particular  was  spoken  of  there  outside  of 
the  current  topics.  The  room  we  lunched  in  was  not  a 
public  dining  room.  It  was  a  private  room.  Copus  went 
up  to  lunch  with  us.  I  believe  Mr.  Halsey  paid  for  the 
lunch.  We  were  there  possibly  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a 
half.  We  had  Sauterne  wine  to  drink,  as  well  as  I  remem- 
ber.    The  next  time  I  saw  Halsey  to  the  best  of  my  recol- 


IX 


lection  was  at  his  office  on  Bush  street,  in  the  telephone 
building  there.  It  was  some  time  between  the  12th  and 
14th  and  the  20th  of  February,  1906,  I  should  judge.  I 
think  I  went  there  on  that  occasion  on  the  invitation  of 
Mr.  Kraus,  as  well  as  I  remember,  that  Mr.  Halsey  would 
like  to  see  me.  I  found  Halsey  when  I  got  there.  I  am 
not  conversant  with  the  building;  I  suppose  the  part  of  the 
building  I  met  him  in  was  his  office.  I  don't  remember 
whether  there  was  any  one  else  in  the  room.  I  had  a  talk 
with  him  in  there.  No  one  else  was  present  while  I  was 
talking  with  him  that  I  am  aware  of.  Mr.  Halsey,  as  well 
as  I  remember,  spoke  to  me  about  the  foolishness  of  having 
a  second  telephone  system  in  San  Francisco.  He  told  me 
the  same  as  Mr.  Kraus  had  told  me — all  they  had  accom- 
plished, and  that  they  were  going  to  accomplish,  and  that 
it  would  cost  m.erchants  twofold  for  the  other  telephone, 
and  they  wanted  to  know  if  I  would  not  be  friendly  toward 
them.  I  told  him  I  was  deeply  impressed  with  the  work- 
ings as  I  had  seen  them,  and  that  I  felt  that  I  could  be 
friendly  to  them.  I  cannot  remember  the  exact  words  he 
then  said  at  the  time.  The  substance  of  it  was  that  it 
would  be  to  my  interest  to  be  friendly,  or  rather,  that  they 
would  make  it  to  my  interest  to  be  friendly  to  them,  and 
I  was  told — I  think  it  was  at  that  meeting — that  there 
would  be  five  thousand  dollars  in  it  for  my  friendship 
down,  and  $2,500  the  following  year,  provided  I  did  not 
accept  a  commission,  or  any  such  thing  as  that  while  I 
remained  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection  at  that  time  I  received  from  him 
one  thousand  dollars  in  currency.  I  put  it  in  my  pocket 
and  took  it  home.  The  next  time  I  saw  Mr.  Halsey  was 
some  few  days  later.  It  was  the  Saturday  previous  to  the 
passing  to  print  of  the  ordinance  relative  to  the  Home 
Telephone  Company.  That  meeting  was  held  in  a  room  in 
the  Mills  Building.  I  cannot  well  recollect  whether  I  was 
telephoned  for  or  not;  I  possibly'-  must  have  been.  The 
meeting  was  up  in  the  building  some  few  stories.  To  the 
best  of  my  recollection  it  was  on  the  side  of  the  building 
that  looked  out  on  Bush  street,  and  not  very  far  from  the 
corner  of  Montgomery  street.  I  found  Mr.  Kraus  there 
when  I  went  in.  There  was  no  one  else  in  the  room 
where  Kraus  was.  That  room  was  furnished  with  a  table 
and  a  couple  of  chairs.  Well,  he  asked  me  if  he  could 
depend  upon  me  as  to  my  friendship  in  regard  to  the 
Pacific  States  Telephone  Company,  and  I  told  him  I  saw 
no  reason  why  he  could  not.  I  don't  remem.ber  whether 
anything    was    said    about    the    Home    Telephone    Company 


X 

franchise.  There  may  have  been.  I  can't  recollect  just  at 
this  moment.  He  told  me  that  he  had  a  sufficiency  of  the 
members  of  the  Board  of  Supel-visors,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection,  who  were  friendly  towards  the  Pacific  States, 
and  that  they  did  not  particularly  need  Mr.  CofiFey,  except 
that  I  had  spoken  well  of  him,  and  depending  on  my 
friendship,  he  gave  me  the  four  thousand  dollars  in  cur- 
rency. During  our  conversation  I  had  mentioned  Mr.  Coflfey 
as  a  friend  of  mine  that  I  thought  was  particularly  friendly 
towards  them.  I  don't  well  remember  whether  he  then  said 
he  would  see  Mr.  Coffey,  or  not,  or  whether  he  made 
answer.  I  do  remember  that  he  said  at  the  latter  meeting 
that  they  did  not  particularly  need  him,  that  he  had  a 
sufficiency  of  the  members.  I  took  it  home  and  gave  it  to 
my  wife. 

"To  the  best  of  my  recollection  I  next  saw  Mr.  Halsey 
at  my  home  the  latter  end  of  the  following  week  after  I 
got  the  money.  No  one  else  was  present  when  he  talked 
with  me.     It  was  in   the  front  room  of  my  house." 

Supervisor  Michael  W.  Coflfey  was  a  hack  driver.  At 
the  Glass  trial  he  told  the  manner  in  which  the  bribe-givers 
approached  him.     He  said: 

"I  have  lived  in  San  Francisco  about  forty  years.  I 
have  been  in  the  carriage  business  driving  a  hack.  I  own 
a  hack  of  my  own.  My  stand  was  on  Fifth  street,  right 
opposite  the  Mint.  I  was  elected  a  member  of  the  Board 
of  Supervisors  in  November,  1905,  and  took  office  early  in 
January,  1906,  I  am  a  married  man.  My  family  consists 
of  four  girls  and  one  boy.  I  am  acquainted  with  T.  V. 
Halsey.  I  first  met  him  some  time  in  the  month  of  De- 
cember at  my  hackstand.  I  am  acquainted  with  John 
Kraus.  I  first  met  him  about  the  same  time.  At  the  time 
that  T  met  Halsey  at  the  hackstand,  Kraus  was  with  him. 
I  am  not  sure  whether  it  was  the  first  time,  but  probably 
the  second  time.  I  think  Mr.  Kraus  came  to  see  me  first, 
and  Mr.  Halsey  came  with  him  afterwards.  Well,  he,  Kraus, 
just  came  up  merely  to  introduce  himself  to  me,  and  asked 
me  how  business  was.  There  was  nothing  said  at  the  time 
that  he  brought  Halsey  to  me.  There  was  nothing  said 
pertaining  to  telephone  matters  at  that  time,  neither;  it 
was  simply  merely  to  give  me  an  introduction  and  ask  me 
up  to  have  a  drink  on  the  corner  of  Jessie  and  Fifth  streets. 
Nothing  was  said  about  the  telephone  service  at  that  time. 
I  next  met  Halsey  a  few  days  afterwards.  Both  Halsey 
and  Kraus  were  there  together  at  that  time,  and  we  spoke — 
they   spoke   to   me   about   my   telephone   service,   both   home 


XI 

and  in  the  drugstore  in  front  of  which  I  had  my  hack- 
stand, and  asked  me  if  the  telephone  service  was  satisfac- 
tory. I  told  them  it  certainly  was,  that  I  couldn't  find  any 
fault  with  either  one.  The  drugstore  'phone  I  had  nothing 
at  all  to  do  with,  any  more  than  I  had  the  privilege  of 
placing  the  number  of  the  telephone  upon  my  business 
cards  so  that  my  friends  could  know  where  to  find  me  in 
case  they  wanted  to  telephone  me.  I  paid  for  no  service 
on  that  'phone  at  all.  My  hackstand  was  right  in  front  of 
the  drugstore.  I  should  judge  Ilalsey  and  Kraus  came 
around  there  to  see  me  between  three  times  and  a  half-a- 
dozen.  I  received  telephone  messages  from  Mr.  Halsey 
several  times.  He  called  me  by  'phone,  he  telephoned  to 
the  house,  and  to  the  stand,  and  wanted  me  to  come  down 
to  see  him.  I  went  down  to  see  him  one  time.  He  after 
that  invited  me  around  to  the  telephone  company's  offices, 
to  view  the  system,  but  I  never  accepted  his  offer,  I  never 
went  with  him.  The  first  occasion  that  I  went  down  to 
the  telephone  company's  office  to  see  him  he  extended  me 
an  invitation  to  come  around  amongst  the  different  branch 
offices  there  to  see  the  sj^stem,  how  it  was  working,  and 
show  me  the  advantages  of  a  one-system  telephone.  Kraus 
was  there  on  one  occasion.  Somewhere  around  in  the 
neighborhood  of  noon  time,  Mr.  Kraus  was  there,  and  Mr. 
Halsey  asked  me  if  I  had  lunch.  I  told  him  no,  not  at 
that  time,  so  he  asked  Mr.  Kraus  to  take  me  out  to  lunch, 
excusing  himself  on  the  ground  of  a  previous  engagement, 
that  he  couldn't  go  to  lunch,  but  he  asked  Mr.  Kraus  to 
take  me  out  to  lunch  and   Mr.   Kraus  did  so. 

"I  had  a  talk  with  Halsey  in  the  Mills  Building.  T 
can't  exactly  tell  the  date,  but  it  was  on  a  Saturday,  in 
and  around  noon  time.  I  can't  exactly  fix  the  date.  Tt 
was  some  time,  T  think,  in  the  month  of  February.  We 
caucused  on  the  Sunday  night,  and  it  v.^as  Saturday,  either 
the  week  prior  to  the  caucus  or  the  day  before  the  caucus. 
This  caucus  was  the  Sunday  prior  to  the  passing  of  the 
ordinance  to  print  which  was  on  a  Monday.  T  went  to  the 
Mills  Building  by  telephone  invitation  of  Mr.  Halsey.  When 
I  got  down  there  T  took  the  elevator  and  went  up  on,  T 
think,  the  seventh  floor  at  the  extreme  end  of  the  building, 
on  one  of  the  rooms  facing  on  Bush  street,  and  the  other 
on  Montgomery  street.  T  found  Mr.  Halsey  there  and  no 
one  else  with  him.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection  there 
was  either  a  box  or  a  chair  and  a  table,  and  a  telephone  in 
there,  and  no  other  furniture  at  all  in  the  room.  Mr.  Halsey 
when  I  went  in,  said,  'Good  day,  Mr.  Coffey.'  Said  I,  'How 
do   you   do,   Mr.    Halsey?'      I   says,   'Did   you    telephone   for 


Xll 


me?'  He  says,  'Yes,  I  want  you  to  be  friendly  with  the 
company,'  and  stepped  into  another  room,  the  door  leading 
into  the  Montgomery  street  entrance,  and  then  came  out 
with  a  parcel,  a  bundle,  and  handed  it  to  me,  and  says, 
'I  would  like  to  have  your  friendship  for  the  company.'  I 
did  not  open  the  package  at  that  time.  Nothing  was  said 
then  about  the  Home  Telephone  Company's  application  for 
the  franchise.  I  took  this  package  that  he  handed  me  home 
and  put  it  in  a  box  in  the  room.  I  did  not  open  it  when 
I  got  home,  not  at  that  time.  Subsequently  I  did.  When 
I  opened  it  I  found  in  it  five  thousand  dollars  in  United 
States  currency.  That  was  very  shortly  after  I  had  been  in 
the  Mills  Building  on  that  occasion.  I  think  it  was  a  few 
days  after  that.  After  putting  this  money  in  the  box  I 
kept   it   there." 


GALLAGHER'S  ORDER  REMOVING  LANGDON 

FROM  OFFICE  OF  DISTRICT  ATTORNEY. 

(October  25,   1906.) 

"To  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco: 

"Gentlemen — Pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  the  Charter  of 
the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and  especially  in 
pursuance  of  Sections  18  and  19  of  Article  XVI  thereof,  I, 
James  L.  Gallagher,  Mayor  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco,  do  hereby  suspend  William  H.  Langdon,  District 
Attorney  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and  an 
elected  officer  thereof,  for  cause,  as  hereinafter  assigned  and 
specified,  and  I  hereby  notify  you  of  such  suspension  and 
the  causes  therefor,  which  are  as  hereinafter  assigned  and 
specified. 

"Said  cause  is  contained  in  the  following  specifications, 
which  specifications  I  hereby  also  present  to  you  as  the 
written  charges  against  said  William  H.  Langdon,  District 
Attorney  as  aforesaid,  and  I  hereby  present  said  specifica- 
tions of  causes  of  such  suspension  as  written  charges  against 
said  William  H.  Langdon,  District  Attorney,  suspended  by 
me  as   aforesaid. 

"Specification    1: 

"Neglect   of   Duty. 

"In  this,  that  for  a  period  of  about  30  days  prior  to 
the  presentation  of  these  charges  the  said  William  H.  Lang- 
don,   District    Attorney    as   aforesaid,    has   absented    himself 


XIll 

from  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  without  leave, 
and  has  neglected  his  official  duties,  being  during  that  time 
engaged  in  the  canvass  and  campaign  for  the  office  of 
Governor  of  the   State   of   California. 

"That  during  said  time,  owing  to  the  recent  disaster,  a 
large  number  of  acts  of  violence  have  occurred  at  the 
hands  of  criminals  congregated  in  said  city,  resulting  in 
an  excessive  and  unusual  number  of  murders,  maimings, 
assassinations,  assaults  and  other  crimes  of  violence,  tend- 
ing to  render  the  city  unsafe  and  to  injure  its  reputation, 
yet  the  said  District  Attorney  wilfully,  without  permission 
from  any  of  the  public  authorities  of  said  city  and  county, 
did  absent  himself  a  greater  portion  of  said  time  from  said 
city  and  county,  and  so  negligently  conducted  and  per- 
formed the  duties  of  his  said  office  as  District  Attorney  as 
to  render  no  active  or  efficient  assistance  to  said  city  and 
county  in  the  proper  prosecution,  detection  or  preventing 
of  any  of  said  crimes,  and  during  the  main  portion  of  said 
period  did  leave  his  said  office  without  the  aid  of  his  super- 
intendence, direction  or  service,  thereby  being  guilty  of 
inefficiency  in  such  public  office  and  being  negligent  and 
inattentive  in  the  performance  of  his  public  duties  at  a 
time  when  the  unusual  activity  of  those  engaged  in  crimes 
of  violence  demanded  and  required  his  personal  presence 
and  greatest  personal  activity  to  aid  in  preventing  or  at- 
tempting to  prevent,  detecting  or  attempting  to  detect  or 
punish   the  said  crimes  or  the   persons  guilty  thereof. 

"Specification   2: 

"Neglect  and  Dereliction  of   Duty. 

"In  this,  that  during  the  period  of  about  30  days  last 
past,  the  newspapers  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco have  published  and  proclaimed  that  the  said  William 
H.  Langdon,  as  District  Attorney,  and  others  co-operating 
with  him,  were,  and  for  months  past  had  been,  in  the  pos- 
session of  evidence  sufficient  to  convict  certain  officials  of 
the  city  and  county  of  serious  crimes.  These  charges  have 
been  repeated  daily  and  within  the  knowledge  and  cogni- 
zance of  said  District  Attorney,  and  yet  notwithstanding 
said  knowledge  and  said  purposes,  the  said  District  Attor- 
ney has  failed  to  cause  the  arrest  of  any  of  said  officials, 
and  if  the  charges  so  publicly  made  are  and  were  not  true, 
the  said  District  Attorney  had  knowledge  of  said  falsity 
and  untruth,  and  yet  notwithstanding  said  knowledge  has 
failed  to  cause  the  arrest  of  the  publishers  or  editors  of  the 
newspapers  for  publishing  said   statements  for  criminal  libel. 

"Specification  3: 


XIV 

"Neglect  and  Violation  of  Duty. 

"That  under  the  provisions  of  the  Charter  of  the  City 
and  County  of  San  Francisco,  it  is  part  of  the  duty  of  the 
District  Attorney,  when  required,  to  advise  the  Board  of 
Police  Commissioners,  the  Chief  of  Police,  the  Board  of 
Health,  or  the  Coroner  as  to  the  matters  relating  to  the 
duties  of  their  respective  offices,  yet  notwithstanding  said 
official  duty,  the  said  William  H.  Langdon,  as  such  District 
Attorney,  has  entered  into  a  combination  and  conspiracy 
for  political  purposes  and  efifect  to  bring  unmerited  discredit 
upon  said  of^cials  or  some  of  them,  and  has  failed  to  advise 
them  relative  to  their  duties,  and  has  assumed  a  position 
and  attitude  inconsistent  with  his  duty  to  the  Police  Com- 
missioners and  the  Chief  of  Police,  thereby  tending  to  im- 
pair and  demoralize  the  Police  Department  of  said  city  at 
a    serious   and   critical    time. 

"Specification   4: 

"Neglect  and  Violation  of  Duty. 

"That  the  said  William  H.  Langdon,  being  the  District 
Attorney  of  said  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  as 
aforesaid,  during  period  above  mentioned,  in  addition  to 
neglecting  his  public  duties,  as  above  set  forth,  instead  of 
aiding  the  authorities  of  said  city  and  county,  did  on  the 
contrary  engage  in  and  assist  in  a  combination  in  the 
interest  of  certain  insurance  corporations  and  other  persons 
to  injure  and  defame  the  character  of  the  Chief  Executive 
of  this  city.  Mayor  Eugene  E.  Schmitz,  in  substance  as 
follows: 

"A  large  number  of  German  insurance  companies,  having 
lost  many  millions  of  dollars  by  the  conflagration  of  April 
18,  1906,  having  denied  their  liability,  Eugene  E.  Schmitz, 
Mayor  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  deemed  it 
advisable  in  the  interest  of  the  upbuilding  and  rehabilitating 
of  the  city,  to  visit  the  German  Empire  in  his  official 
capacity  for  the  purpose  of  stating  the  true  facts  concern- 
ing said  conflagration  to  the  home  officials  of  said  com- 
panies and  to  use  his  personal  influence  vv'herever  the  same 
would  be  available  in  the  German  Empire,  with  a  view  to 
cause  the  said  insurance  companies  to  pay  the  said  losses; 
and  deeming  said  matter  one  of  great  public  interest,  the 
said  Mayor  did  obtain  from  the  Board  of  Supervisors  a 
leave  of  absence  from  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco 
for  a  period  of  60  days  from  October  1,  1906;  and  after  he 
left  on  said  mission,  a  combination,  plot  and  plan  was 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  defaming  and  injuring  and  weak- 
ening    the     standing    and     reputation     of     said     Eugene     E. 


XV 

Schmitz,  in  order  that  his  said  attempts  might  be  discredited 
and  to  destroy  whatever  influence  the  Chief  Executive  of 
this  city  might  have  in  dealing  with  the  said  insurance  com- 
panies at  their  home  offices  and  in  obtaining  influence 
abroad  to  compel  said  companies  to  properly  recognize  their 
obligations;  and  that  as  a  part  of  said  scheme,  it  was 
determined  to  print  and  publish  in  the  newspapers  of  San 
Francisco  charges  against  the  said  Mayor  which  w^ere  false, 
malicious  and  slanderous  and  known  so  to  be  by  the  par- 
tics  engaged  in  said  scheme,  and  among  other  things  said 
persons  so  engaged  did  cause  it  to  be  published  that  the 
Chief  Executive  of  this  city  was  a  fugitive  from  justice 
and  had  absconded  from  the  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco; and  that  the  said  William  H.  Langdon,  as  District 
Attorney  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  and 
acting  in  his  capacity  as  such,  did  aid,  assist  and  abet  and 
further  the  said  scheme  as  aforesaid,  and  has  become  and 
is  an  active  party  thereto  to  the  end  that  said  Mayor  should 
be  induced  to  return  to  San  Francisco  to  defend  himself 
against  such  charges  before  he  could  have  time  to  accom- 
plish the  said  purpose  for  which  he  went  to  said  German 
Empire. 

"Specification  5: 

"Violation  of  Duty  and  Use  of  Oflfice  for  Ulterior  Purposes, 

"That  during  the  fall  of  1905,  one  Francis  J.  Heney,  in 
a  public  speech  in  said  city  and  county,  aspersed  the  char- 
acter and  good  name  of  a  prominent  citizen  of  this  com- 
munity, and  stated  that  he  knew  him  to  be  corrupt,  and 
said  citizen  having  instantly  demanded  that  said  Heney  be 
compelled  to  make  proof  of  said  assertions  and  said  Heney 
having  been  compelled  to  appear  before  the  Grand  Jury  of 
said  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  with  reference 
thereto,  there  admitted  that  he  had  made  such  statements 
without  any  personal  knowledge  regarding  the  same,  which 
facts  were  widely  published  at  the  time,  and  brought  said 
Heney  into  obloquy  and  contempt,  from  which  time  said 
Heney  had  been  possessed  of  a  purpose  to  effect  a  personal 
revenge  both  against  the  object  of  his  false  charges  and 
against  Eugene  E.  Schmitz,  Mayor  of  San  Francisco,  and 
all  of  these  facts  were  and  are  well  known  to  said  William 
H.  Langdon.  as  District  Attorney  as  aforesaid;  yet  not- 
withstanding said  knowledge  and  within  the  month  of 
October,  1906.  the  said  William  H.  Langdon,  in  order  to 
enable  said  Heney  to  use  public  office,  position  and  powder 
tc  gratify  his  spirit  of  revenge  and  malice,  did  appoint 
said    Heney    Assistant    District    Attorney    of    said    city    and 


XVI 

county,  and  did  turn  over  to  him  the  powers  of  office  of 
said  District  Attorney  in  order  that  he  might  gratify  his 
private   revenge   and  malice. 

"Specification   6: 

"That  prior  to  such  appointment  as  such  Assistant  Dis- 
trict Attorney,  said  Francis  J.  Heney  had  publicly  assailed 
the  Judges  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  city  and  county  as 
corrupt  and  crooked,  and  had  denounced  all  or  nearly  all 
of  them  as  dishonest  and  corrupt,  and  yet  has  failed  at  any 
time  to  make  proof  of  such  charges,  which  facts  were  all 
well  known  to  said  William  H.  Langdon,  District  Attorney 
as  aforesaid,  from  the  time  of  the  utterance,  which  was  long 
anterior  to  the  time  of  said  Heney's  appointment  by  said 
Langdon,  and  said  Langdon  also  knew  that  said  Heney 
frequently,  while  intoxicated,  made  grave  and  serious 
charges  involving  the  personal  character  of  citizens  of  this 
city,  yet  notwithstanding  such  knowledge  said  William  H. 
Langdon  did  appoint  said  Heney  to  such  office,  knowing 
that  the  said  Heney  in  such  office  would  be  required  to 
appear  before  the  Judges  whose  character  he  had  thus 
aspersed,  and  to  practice  in  their  courts,  did  appoint  said 
Heney  to  said  office,  which  appointment  is  not  conducive  to 
the  proper  co-operation  which  should  exist  between  the 
Judges  of  the  Superior  Court  and  the  office  of  District 
Attorney. 

"Specification    7: 

"That  said  Francis  J.  Heney  at  and  prior  to  the  time  of 
his  appointment  as  Assistant  District  Attorney  was  the 
representative  of  the  corporation  controlling  the  street  car 
system  of  said  city  and  county  in  a  certain  dispute  be- 
tween said  corporation  and  its  employes.  That  the  appoint- 
ment of  said  Heney  to  said  office  will,  in  regard  to  the 
enforcement  of  law  against  said  corporation,  be  prejudicial 
and  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  said  city  and  county. 

"Specification  8: 

"That  prior  to  the  turning  over  of  said  District  Attor- 
ney's office  and  its  powers  to  said  Francis  J.  Heney.  as 
hereinabove  specified,  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco 
had  intended  to  procure  its  own  water  supply  and  thereby 
to  prevent  the  exorbitant  charges  for  water  now  exacted 
by  the  private  corporation  controlling  the  city's  water 
supply,  and  that  it  was  about  to  take  proceedings  to  pro- 
vide a  safe  and  secure  supply  of  water  for  said  City  and 
County  of  San  Francisco  for  domestic  use,  extinction  of 
conflagrations,    etc.,   and    that    such    purpose   was    greatly    to 


XVll 

the  interest  of  said  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco, 
That  said  corporation  now  supplying  water  to  said  city  and 
county  is  bitterly  opposed  to  the  acquiring  of  a  water  sup- 
ply to  the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  on  account 
of  its   present  monopoly. 

"Said  Francis  J.  Heney  has  been  and  is  attorney  em- 
ployed by  said  Water  Company,  and  his  attorneyship  for 
such  company  is  inconsistent  with  the  holding  of  a  place 
as  Assistant  District  Attorney,  and  against  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  people  of  San   Francisco. 

"Specification  9: 

"That  in  the  interest  of  the  corporations  and  persons 
before  mentioned,  or  some  or  all  of  them,  together  with 
persons  unknown,  large  sums  of  money  have  been  and  are 
being  raised  for  the  purpose  of  slandering,  defaming  and 
injuring  the  reputation  of  said  Mayor  Eugene  E.  Schmitz, 
and  of  suborning  perjury  against  him,  thereby  injuring  the 
interests  of  said  city  and  county  and  its  residents  and 
inhabitants;  and  said  William  H.  Langdon  as  such  District 
Attorney,  knowing  said  facts,  by  the  appointment  of  said 
Heney,  is  knowingly  aiding  and  abetting  the  said  plot  and 
scheme. 

"Specification    10: 

"Violation  of  Duty  and  Ulterior  Use  of  Oltice. 

"That  since  the  appointment  of  said  F.  J.  Heney  as  an 
Assistant  District  Attorney  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco  by  said  William  H.  Langdon,  the  said  Langdon 
and  the  said  Heney  have  caused  to  be  published  or  have 
been  parties  to  the  publication  of  open  and  covert  threats 
against  the  Superior  Judges  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  the  judicial  action 
of   said  Judges. 

"Specification    11: 

"That  the  appointment  of  said  Heney  as  such  .-\ssistant 
District  Attorney  was  made  by  said  Langdon  in  furtherance 
of  the  combination  aforesaid,  and  at  the  dictation  of  cer- 
tain newspaper  influences  and  individu.als,  who  have  con- 
tributed many  thousands  of  dollars  to  further  the  political 
ambitions  and  aspirations  of  said  William  H.  Langdon  and 
other  persons,  and  to  secure  through  the  appointment  of 
said  Heney  the  consummation  of  a  political  plan  and  the 
wreaking  of  their  private  revenges  against  Eugene  E. 
Schmitz,  Mayor  of  San  Francisco,  and  the  Board  of  Super- 
visors and  the  Police  Department  of  the  City  and  County 
of  San  Francisco  and  their  political  supporters,  and  to 
generally    disrupt    the    business    and    proper    government    of 

16 


XVIU 


this  city,  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  attempting  to  influ- 
ence the  ensuing  election.  And  said  combination  is  also  in 
pursuance  of  a  well-defined  and  organized  plan  for  the 
purpose  of  controlling  and  subjugating  the  labor  market 
and    the    wage-earners. 

"And  the  said  William  H.  Langdon  turned  over  said 
office  of  District  Attorney  as  aforesaid  to  said  Francis  J. 
Heney  with  the  intent  and  purpose  and  with  the  under- 
standing that  said  Francis  J.  Heney  would  and  should 
abuse  such  position,  and  use  his  said  position  as  a  deputy 
in  a  substantial  control  of  said  office  of  District  Attorney 
to  gratify  his  own  private  and  personal  revenge,  and  also 
with  the  intent  that  said  Francis  J.  Heney,  through  said 
office,  should  produce  before  the  Grand  Jury  of  said  city 
and  county  illegal  and  hearsay  evidence  which  by  law  said 
Grand  Jury  is  forbidden  to  act  upon,  and  procure  such 
Grand  Jury  to  return  indictments  against  innocent  citizens 
of  said  city  and  county  upon  such  illegal  and  hearsay  evi- 
dence for  the  purpose  of  gratifying  the  private  revenge  of 
said  Francis  J.  Heney  and  the  political  ambitions  of  said 
William  H.  Langdon.  And  said  William  H.  Langdon  also 
further  turned  over  said  office  and  power  to  said  Francis  J. 
Heney  with  the  intent  and  purpose  that  said  Francis  J. 
Heney  in  such  position  should  advise  such  Grand  Jury  that 
matters  and  acts  not  constituting  an  ofifense  at  law  were 
indictable  offenses,  and  thus  and  thereby  falsely  and  un- 
lawfully procure  indictments  against  innocent  citizens  of 
said  city  and  county. 

"Specification  12: 

"That  in  addition  to  the  purposes  hereinabove  specified 
as  a  foundation  and  reason  for  the  acts  set  forth,  that  all 
the  acts  hereinabove  charged  and  set  forth  as  having  been 
done,  aided,  abetted,  procured  or  assisted  by  said  William 
H.  Langdon  as  said  District  Attorney,  were  so  done  and 
performed  by  said  William  H.  Langdon  as  such  District 
Attorney  to  promote  his  own  political  ambitions  and  upon 
and  at  the  eve  of  an  election  about  to  occur  in  the  State 
of  California,  at  which  said  William  H.  Langdon  is  a  can- 
didate for  Governor,  all  with  intent  to  deceive  and  tnislead 
electors  and  voters  and  to  procure  an  increased  vote  for 
himself  as   such   candidate   for   Governor. 

"Inefficiency  in  the  office  of  District  Attorney,  and 
neglect  on  the  part  of  the  District  Attorney  and  his  office 
to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office. 

"Dated,   San   Francisco,   October  25,   1906. 

"JAMES   L.    GALLAGHER, 
"Mayor   of   the   City   and    County   of  San    Francisco." 


XIX 


THE    RUEF    "IMMUNITY    CONTRACT." 

The  "immunity  contract"  given   Ruef  was  as  follows: 

"Whereas,  Abraham  Ruef  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco  has  agreed  to  impart  to  the  District  Attorney  of 
the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  State  of  California, 
a  full  and  fair  statement  and  disclosure,  so  far  as  known  to 
him,  of  all  crimes  and  offenses  involved  in  the  so-called 
'graft'  prosecutions  or  investigations  now  and  heretofore 
conducted  by  said  District  Attorney  by  whomsoever  such 
offenses  or  crimes  may  have  been  committed,  and  has  agreed 
in  making  such  disclosure  and  statement  to  state  fully  and 
wholly  all  the  facts  and  circumstances  known  to  him  in, 
about,  and  surrounding  the  same,  and  in  making  such  state- 
ment and  disclosure  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and 
nothing  but  the  truth; 

"Now,  Therefore,  In  consideration  of  the  premises  it  is 
agreed  by  the  undersigned  that  if  said  A.  Ruef  shall  do  said 
things  and  immediately  make  such  full  and  fair  disclosure 
of  all  such  crimes  and  offenses  involved  in  the  so-called 
'graft'  prosecutions  and  investigations  above  referred  to,  and 
known  to  him,  and  shall  state  and  disclose  to  the  under- 
signed the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  and  shall  make  full  and  fair  disclosure  of  all  said 
crimes  and  offenses  known  to  him,  and  of  all  the  facts  and 
circumstances  in,  about  and  surrounding  the  same  and  known 
to  him,  and  shall  at  all  times  whenever  called  upon,  before 
any  court,  testify  in  regard  thereto  and  to  the  whole  thereof 
fully  and  fairly,  together  with  all  the  facts  and  circumstances 
surrounding  the  same,  so  far  as  the  same  are  known  to  him, 
and  shall  state,  tell  and  testify  on  oath  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth  therein,  then  and  in  that 
event  the  undersigned,  deeming  it  to  be  in  the  interests  of 
public  justice,  and  believing  that  said  A.  Ruef  will  thereby 
be  equitably  entitled  to  such  consideration  in  accordance 
with  the  time-honored  custom  and  practice  of  prosecuting 
officers  in  both  State  and  Federal  jurisdictions  throughout 
this  country,  and  in  line  with   common  law  precedents. 

"1.  Will  grant  and  obtain  for  said  A.  Ruef  full  and 
complete  immunity  from  prosecution  or  punishment  for  all 
and  any  of  said  offenses  and  crimes  involved  in  said  so- 
called  'graft'  prosecutions  or  investigations,  and  will  not 
prosecute  him   for  any  thereof. 

"2.  Will  cause  said  A.  Ruef  to  be  jointly  and  not  other- 
wise indicted  with  all  and  any  others  against  whom  indict- 
ments have  heretofore  been  or  may  hereafter  be  returned 
or  found  for  or  upon  any  crimes  or  offenses  in   which   said 


XX 


Ruef  has  participated  or  is  alleged  to  have  participated  to 
this  date;  provided,  however,  that  the  undersigned  shall  not 
be  bound  to  include  any  of  the  present  members  of  the 
Board   of   Supervisors   in   any   such   indictments. 

"3.  Will,  as  any  one  of  said  joint  indictments  relating 
to  a  specific  subject  matter  shall  be  taken  up  for  trial,  after 
the  jury  has  been  impaneled  and  sworn  to  try  the  same, 
dismiss  the  same  and  all  other  indictments  and  charges  on 
the  same  general  subject  matter  as  against  the  said  Ruef,' 
under  the  provisions  of  section  1099  of  the  Penal  Code  of 
the  State  of  California,  and  will  at  the  same  time  dismiss 
all  indictments  relating  to  the  same  general  subject  matter, 
which  are  now  pending  against  said  Ruef  singly. 

"Any  and  all  indictments  or  charges  upon  any  general 
subject  matter  of  which  one  shall  not  have  been  brought 
to  trial  before  December  31st,  1907,  shall  be  dismissed  as 
to  said  Ruef  and  said  Ruef  discharged  on  or  before  Decem- 
ber 31st,  1907,  under  the  provisTons  of  section  1099  of  the 
Penal  Code  where  applicable,  or  under  provisions  of  other 
sections  of  said  code  in  cases  where  said  section  1099  shall 
not  be  applicable. 

"It  is  however  expressly  agreed  that  in  any  event  all  in- 
dictments and  charges  now  pending  or  hereafter  to  be 
brought  against  said  Ruef  (except  action  No.  305  which  is 
herein  otherwise  provided  for)  shall  be  dismissed  as  against 
said  Ruef  under  the  provisions  of  section  1099  of  the  Penal 
Code  where  the  same  may  be  applicable  and  when  said 
section  is  not  applicable  shall  be  dismissed  under  other 
provisions  of  the  Code,  all  prior  to  December  31st,  1907; 
provided,  the  undersigned  District  Attorney  shall  not  be 
re-elected  as  such  District  Attorney  in  November,  1907,  and, 
in  any  event,  prior  to  said  District  Attorney  resigning  or 
otherwise  surrendering  or  giving  up  his  office  or  terminating 
his  tenure  thereof,  it  being  the  understanding  and  agree- 
ment that  each  and  every  indictment  and  charge  now  pend- 
ing or  hereafter  to  be  brought  against  said  Ruef  shall  be 
absolutely  dismissed. 

"Provided,  that  said  Ruef  shall  have  fully  yr-p^vmed  so 
far  as  may  have  been  in  his  power  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
his  agreement  herein. 

"4.  All  and  any  indictments  or  charges  which  are  to  be 
found  or  returned  against  said  Ruef  jointly  or  otherwise, 
shall  be  returned  and  found  not  later  than  October  1st,  1907, 
unless    hereafter   otherwise  mutually  agreed. 

"5.  In  the  event  of  the  prosecution  of  said  Ruef  by  any 
other  officer  or  person  on  account  of  any  of  su'h  crimes  or 
ofifenses    committed    or    participated    in    or    alleged    to    have 


been  committed  or  participated  in  by  said  Ruef  to  this  date, 
the  undersigned  will  employ  every  legitimate  influence  and 
power  to  secure  a  dismissal  thereof,  and  in  the  event  that  a 
conviction  shall  be  had  in  any  thereof,  the  undersigned 
hereby  agree  to  apply  to  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia for  the  pardon  of  said  Ruef  therefor  or  therein  and  to 
use  all  legitimate  influence  and  power  to  secure  such  pardon. 
"6.  It  is  understood  and  agreed  that,  notwithstanding 
the  scope  and  effect  of  the  language  used  throughout  this 
agreement,  it  does  not  and  shall  not  be  construed  to  apply 
in  any  respect  or  particular  to  that  certain  indictment  No. 
305,  or  the  offense  charged  therein,  which  is  now  pending 
against  said  Abraham  Ruef  jointly  with  Eugene  E.  Schmitz, 
in  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City  and  County  of  San  Fran- 
cisco, State  of  California,  in  Department  No.  6  thereof. 
"Dated,  May  8th,  1907. 

"WM.  H.  LANGDON, 
"District   Attorney   of  the   City 
and  County  of  San  Francisco. 
"FRANCIS  J.  HENEY, 
"Assistant  District  Attorney  of  the 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco. 
"Agreed  to: 
"A.  RUEF." 


"IMMUNITY    CONTRACT"    GIVEN    SUPERVISORS. 

"San   Francisco,   Cal.,   July   30,    1907. 

"Whereas.  James  L.  Gallagher.  E.  J.  Walsh,  F.  P.  Nich- 
olas, C.  J.  Harrigan,  Max  Mamlock.  J.  J.  Furey,  Jennings 
Phillips,  Thomas  F.  Lonergan,  James  F.  Kelly,  L.  A.  Rea, 
W.  W.  Sanderson,  Daniel  C.  Coleman,  Sam  Davis,  A.  M. 
Wilson,  M.  F.  CoflFey.  all  of  the  City  and  County  of  San 
Francisco,  State  of  California,  have  each  m.ade  to  me  a 
disclosure  of  certain  crimes  and  offenses  committed  by  him- 
self, and  by  himself  jointly  with  others  and  by  others,  which 
he  claims  to  be  a  full  and  fair  disclosure  thereof,  so  far  as 
known   to   him. 

"Now,  therefore,  in  consideration  of  the  premises,  deem- 
ing it  to  be  in  the  interest  of  public  justice,  and  believing 
that  each  of  the  above-named  parties  will  thereby  become 
equitably  entitled  to  such  consideration,  in  accordance  with 
the  time-honored  custom  and  practice  of  prosecuting  of^cers, 
in  both  State  and  Federal  jurisdictions  throughout  this 
country,    and    in    line    with    common    law    precedence,    it    is 


XXll 

agreed  by  me  that  if  he  has  made  a  full  and  fair  disclosure 
of  all  of  such  crimes  and  ofifenses  and  has  stated  to  me  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  and  if  he 
shall  whenever  called  upon  to  do  so  by  me,  or  by  any 
other  officer  on  behalf  of  the  People  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, to  again  make  a  full  and  fair  disclosure  of  such 
crimes  and  ofifenses,  together  with  the  facts  and  circum- 
stances surrounding  the  same  and  the  persons  therein  in- 
volved, in  any  cause,  action  or  proceeding  whatever  in 
regard  thereto,  fully  and  fairly,  together  with  the  facts  and 
circumstances  surrounding  said  crimes  and  ofifenses  and  the 
persons  involved,  and  tell  and  testify  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  then,  and  in  that  event, 
each  one  of  them  who  so  does  shall  not  be  prosecuted, 
complained  against  or  indicted  for  any  of  said  crimes  or 
ofifenses,  or  his  connection  therewith. 

"It  is  understood  that  the  making  or  verifying  of  any 
affidavit  or  answer  in  the  case  of  'Langdon  vs.  Ruef,  et  al.,' 
heretofore  brought  in  the  Superior  Court  of  this  city  and 
county,  is  included  in  this  agreement;  and  it  is  further 
understood  that  Fred  P.  Nicholas  shall  not  be  further  prose- 
cuted in  the  case  now  pending  against  him  in  which  he  is 
under  indictment  in  this  city  and  county,  upon  the  charge 
of  accepting  and  agreeing  to  accept  a  bribe  from  one 
Holmes. 

"Signed:  W.  H.  Langdon,  District  Attorney;  Franris  J. 
Heney,  Asst.  Dist.  Atty.     Witness:     James  L.  Gallagher." 

The   People  vs.   Ruef,   page   1382. 


DISTRICT  ATTORNEY   LANGDON'S   PLAN   FOR    RE- 

ORGANIZING   THE   MUNICIPAL    GOVERNMENT. 

(See  Chapter  XVII.) 

"San  Francisco,  July  9,  1907. — To  the  San  Francisco 
Labor  Council,  the  Merchants'  Association,  the  Building 
Trades  Council,  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  Board  of 
Trade,  the  Real  Estate  Board  and  the  Mercharts'  Exchange: 
Gentlemen — We  respectfully  submit  to  your  consideration 
and  ask  your  co-operation  in  the  carrying  out  of  the  fol- 
lowing proposed  plan  for  the  selection  of  a  Mayor  of  the 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  for  the  unexpired  term 
of  Eugene  E.  Schmitz,  who,  having  been  elected  Mayor  of 
the  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco  in  November,  1905, 
was  on  the  13th  day  of  June,  1907,  convicted  of  a  felony; 
to  wit,  of  the  crime   of  extortion,  by  a  jury  in  Department 


No.  6  of  the  Superior  Court  of  the  City  and  County  of 
San  Francisco,  State  of  California.  Thereafter,  upon  the 
8th  day  of  July,  1907,  judgment  upon  the  conviction  was 
duly  pronounced  and  entered,  by  which  a  sentence  was 
imposed  of  five  years'  imprisonment  in  the  State  Prison  at 
San   Quentin. 

"The  Political  Code  of  this  State,  and  the  charter  of  the 
City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  both  provide  that  the 
office  becomes  vacant  when  the  incumbent  is  convicted  of  a 
felony,  and  in  several  decisions  our  Supreme  Court  has  held 
that  the  words  'convicted  of  a  felony,'  signify  the  verdict 
of  a  jury.  That  court  has  also  held  that  this  provision  of 
the  code  and  charter  is  self-acting,  and  that  the  vacancy 
is  created  'eo  instanti,'  upon  the  happening  of  the  event, 
and  that  all  that  is  necessary  is  for  the  appointing  power 
to  fill  the  vacancy  thus  created.  By  virtue  of  the  conviction 
of  Eugene  E.  Schmitz,  the  office  of  Mayor  of  the  City  and 
County  of  San  Francisco  became  vacant.  Upon  the  9th  day 
of  July,  1907,  the  Board  of  Supervisors,  pursuant  to  the 
charter,  elected  as  Mayor  to  fill  the  vacancy  thus  created 
Dr.  Charles  Boxton.  This  action  was  taken  to  avoid  legal 
complications  in  the  interim,  before  a  permanent  selection 
of  Mayor  could  be  made,  and  it  is  thoroughly  well  under- 
stood that  the  selection  of  Dr.  Charles  Boxton  is  merely 
temporary. 

"The  conditions  surrounding  the  present  Board  of  Super- 
visors have  been  so  completely  explained,  through  the  public 
press,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  further  detail  in  that 
regard  than  to  say  that  Dr.  Boxton  has  offered  to  resign 
his  office  as  Mayor,  as  soon  as  a  suitable  successor  has 
been  found.  In  the  present  unprecedented  condition  of  the 
municipal  government,  circumstances  have  made  it  the  duty 
of  the  District  .\tt0rne3',  in  the  interest  of  the  public  wel- 
fare, to  take  the  initiative,  in  the  endeavor  to  find  such  a 
successor. 

"It  is  the  desire  of  the  District  Attorney  as  speedily  as 
possible  to  confine  the  operations  of  his  office  entirely  to 
those  duties  ordinarily  incumbent  upon  it.  The  next  election 
for  city  officers  takes  place  in  November  of  this  year,  but 
the  situation  of  the  city  government,  and  the  material  con- 
ditions obtaining  in  the  city  with  regard  to  necessary  public 
improvements,  render  it  absolutely  indispensable  that  we 
proceed  with  the  utmost  energy  to  obtain  for  the  office  of 
Mayor  a  man  of  unblemished  integrity  and  great  executive 
ability. 

"The  District  Attorney  and  his  associates,  realizing  that 
the  selection  of  a  Mayor  to  fill  the  unexpired  term  in  ques- 


XXIV 

tion  should  be  made  by  as  representative  a  body  of  the 
people  as  possible,  have  deemed  it  wise  to  call  together  a 
convention  that  will  be,  as  nearly  as  circumstances  and  the 
time  at  our  disposal  permit,  fairly  representative  of  the 
community  at  large.  For  that  purpose  they  have  decided 
to  call  together  a  convention  composed  of  thirty  delegates, 
fifteen  of  whom  shall  represent  labor,  and  the  remaining 
fifteen    shall    represent    employers    generally. 

"It  is,  of  course,  impossible  on  account  of  the  limited 
time  at  our  disposal  to  accord  representation  to  all  the 
organized  bodies  in  the  city  entitled  to  the  same.  All  that 
we  can  reasonably  be  expected  to  do  is  to  make  a  sincere 
and  earnest  efifort  to  have  the  convention  composed  of 
delegates  from  such  well-known  organized  bodies,  large  and 
varied  in  membership,  that  the  people  generally  will  be 
satisfied  that  the  plan  of  selection  is  fair,  reasonable  and 
democratic. 

"The  prosecution  in  the  graft  cases  feels  that  it  is 
highly  desirable  to  keep  politics  out  of  the  organization  of 
the  city  government  as  much  as  possible  until  the  people, 
in  the  manner  ordained  by  law,  have  an  opportunity  at  the 
ballot-box   again    to    express   their   will    directly. 

"We  address  this  communication  and  invitation  to  the 
following  bodies,  to  wit:  The  San  Francisco  T.abor  Coun- 
cil, the  Merchants'  Association,  the  Building  Trades  Council, 
the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  the  Board  of  Trade,  the  Real 
Estate  Board  and  the  Merchants'  Exchange.  We  respect- 
fully request  the  foregoing  associations  to  send  delegates 
to  the  proposed  convention  on  the  following  basis  of  appor- 
tionment, that  is  to  say,  that  the  two  bodies  representing 
labor  shall  select  fifteen  delegates,  eight  of  whom  shall  be 
selected  by  the  San  Francisco  Labor  Council  and  seven  by 
the  Building  Trades  Council,  and  the  remaining  ■  fifteen 
members  of  the  convention  shall  be  selected,  three  each,  by 
the  remaining  five  bodies  above  mentioned. 

"It  will  be  appreciated  that  it  is  necessary  to  impose  a 
time  limit  within  v/hich  the  selection  of  delegates  shall  be 
made,  and  the  subsequent  nomination  of  a  Mayor  by  the 
convention  shall  be  accomplished.  In  that  view  we  ask  that 
a  response  to  this  invitation,  containing  the  names  of  the 
delegates  selected,  be  delivered  to  the  District  Attorney's 
office,  2181  Fillmore  street,  on  or  before  Saturday,  July  13, 
1907,  and  that  the  Mayor  be  nominated  within  five  days 
thereafter.  The  success  of  this  plan,  in  our  judgment,  de- 
pends absolutely  upon  the  harmonious  co-operation  of  all 
sections  of  our  people,  who,  we  believe,  are  fairly  repre- 
sented by  one  or  more  of  the  foregoing  associations.     Con- 


scquently  we  deem  it  essential  to  prescribe  as  a  condition 
for  the  assembling  of  the  proposed  convention  that  this 
invitation   shall  be  accepted   by  all   of  these   bodies. 

"This  plan  for  the  selection  of  a  Mayor  is  the  result  of 
most  patient,  thorough  and  anxious  deliberation  on  the  part 
of  those  associated  in  the  graft  prosecution,  and  its  single 
purpose  is  to  satisfy,  so  far  as  in  our  power,  the  desire  of 
all  good  citizens  to  sink  factional  and  political  dififercnccs 
and  choose  for  Mayor  a  man  who  will  be  generally  recog- 
nized and  accepted  as  representative  of  the  whole  people, 
who  will  bring  to  all  industrial  disputes  a  spirit  of  con- 
ciliation and  harmony,  and  who  will  be  possessed  of  the 
capacity,  energy  and  honesty  needed  in  the  great  work  of 
rehabilitating  our  city  and  restoring  it  to  normal  conditions. 
We  desire  that  perfect  freedom  and  independence  of  action 
shall  govern  the  convention  from  its  inception  to  its  close, 
and  accordingly  the  District  Attorney  and  his  associates  will 
wholly  refrain  from  an}'  participation  after  the  convention 
has  assembled.  I  have  the  honor  to  be, 
"Yours  very  truly, 
"W.   H.  LANGDON,  District   Attorney." 


ROOSEVELT'S    LETTER    TO    SPRECKELS    ON    THE 
GRAFT  SITUATION. 

"The  White  House,  Washington,  June  8,  1908. 

"My  Dear  Mr.  Spreckels — Now  and  then  you  and  Mr. 
Heney  and  the  others  who  are  associated  with  you  must 
feel  down-hearted  when  you  see  men  guilty  of  atrocious 
crimes  who  from  some  cause  or  other  succeed  in  escaping 
punishment,  and  especially  when  you  see  men  of  wealth, 
of  high  business  and,  in  a  sense,  of  high  social  standing, 
banded  together  against  you. 

"My  dear  sir,  I  want  you  to  feel  that  your  experience 
is  simply  the  experience  of  all  of  us  who  are  engaged  in 
this  fight.  There  is  no  form  of  slander  and  wicked  false- 
hood which  will  not  as  a  matter  of  course  be  employed 
against  all  men  engaged  in  such  a  struggle,  and  this  not 
only  on  the  part  of  men  and  papers  representing  the  lowest 
type  of  demagogy,  but,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  also  on  the  part 
of  men  and  papers  representing  the  interests  that  call  them- 
selves pre-eminently  conservative,  pre-eminently  cultured. 

"In  such  a  struggle  it  is  too  often  true  that  the  feeling 
against  those  engaged  in  it  becomes  peculiarly  bitter,  not 
merely  in  the  business  houses  of  the  great  financiers  who 
directly  profit  by  the  wrongdoing,  but  also  in  the   clubs,  in 


certain  newspaper  offices  where  business  interests  exercise 
an  unhealthy  control  and,  I  regret  to  add,  in  other  news- 
paper offices  which  like  to  be  considered  as  to  a  marked 
degree  the  representatives  of  the  cultivation  and  high  social 
standing  of  the  country. 

"Now,  I  do  hope  that  you  and  your  colleagues  will  treat 
all  this  bitterness  with  entire  disregard.  It  is  of  small  con- 
sequence to  you,  or  to  any  of  us  who  are  engaged  in  this 
work,  whether  men  think  well  or  ill  of  us  personally;  but 
it  is  of  very  great  consequence  that  we  should  do  the  work 
without  flinching,  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  hand, 
without  losing  our  good-humored  common  sense,  without 
becoming  angered  and  irritated  to  a  degree  that  will  in  any 
way  cause  us  to  lose  our  heads. 

"Therefore,  I  hope  that  you  and  Heney  and  your  asso- 
ciates will  keep  reasonably  good-natured;  but  that  above  all 
things  you  will  not  lose  heart.  You  must  battle  on  valiantly, 
no  matter  what  the  biggest  business  men  may  say,  no 
matter  what  the  mob  may  say,  no  matter  what  may  be  said 
by  that  element  which  may  be  regarded  as  socially  the 
highest  element.  You  must  steadfastly  oppose  those  foolish 
or  wicked  men  who  would  substitute  class  consciousness 
and  loyalty  to  class  interest,  for  loyalty  to  American  citi- 
zenship as  a  whole,  for  loyalty  to  the  immutable  laws  of 
righteousness,  of  just  and  fair  dealing  as  between  man  and 
man. 

"It  is  just  as  bad  to  be  ruled  by  a  plutocracy  as  by  a 
mob.  It  is  profoundly  un-American  and,  in  a  social  sense, 
profoundly  immoral,  to  stand  for  or  against  a  given  man, 
not  because  he  is  or  is  not  a  brave,  upright  and  able  man, 
but  because  he  does  or  does  not  belong  to  a  labor  union  or 
does  or  does  not  represent  the  big  business  interests.  In 
their  essence,  down  at  the  foundation  of  things,  the  ties  that 
are  all-important  are  those  that  knit  honest  men,  brave 
men,  square-dealing  men,  together,  and  it  is  a  77:i:3^hty  poor 
substitute  if  we  replace  these  ties  by  those  that  bind  men 
together,  whether  they  are  good  or  bad,  simply  because 
they  follow  a  particular  business,  have  a  given  social  stand- 
ing or  belong  to  a  particular  organization.  It  is  an  evil 
and  a  dreadful  thing  for  laboring  men  to  endeavor  to  secure 
the  political  dominance  of  labor  unions  by  conniving  at 
crookedness  or  violence,  by  being  'loyal'  to  crooked  labor 
leaders,  for  to  be  'loyal'  to  the  fancied  interests  of  the 
unions  when  they  are  against  the  laws  of  morality  and  the 
interests  of  the  whole  people  means  ultimately  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  unions  themselves,  as  an  incident  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  all  good  citizenship. 


XXVll 

"But  it  is,  if  anything,  an  even  more  evil  and  dreadful 
thing  to  have  the  merchants,  the  business  men,  the  captains 
of  industry  accessories  to  crime  and  shielders  and  support- 
ers of  criminals;  it  is  an  even  more  dreadful  thing  to  see 
the  power  of  men  high  in  State  politics,  high  in  finance, 
high  in  the  social  life  of  the  rich  and  fashionable,  united 
to  stifle  the  prosecution  of  offenders  against  civic  integrity 
if  these  offenders  happen  to  be  their  friends  and  associates; 
and  most  evil  of  all  is  it  when  we  see  crooks  of  a  labor 
party  in  offensive  and  defensive  alliance  with  the  crooks  of 
a  corporation  party.  Labor  unions  and  corporations  alike 
should  be  heartily  supported  when  they  do  good  work,  and 
fearlessly  opposed  when  they  stand  for  what  is  evil.  The 
best  kind  of  wage  worker,  the  best  kind  of  laboring  man, 
must  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the  best  kind  of  pro- 
fessional man,  with  the  best  kind  of  business  man,  in  put- 
ting a  stop  to  the  undermining  of  civic  decency,  and  this 
without  any  regard  to  whether  it  is  a  labor  union  or  a 
corporation  which  is  imdermining  it,  without  any  regard 
to  whether  the  offender  is  a  rich  man  or  a  poor  man. 

"Indeed,  if  there  can  be  any  degrees  in  the  contemptuous 
abhorrence  with  which  right  thinking  citizens  should  regard 
corruption,  it  must  be  felt  in  its  most  extreme  form  for  the 
so-called  'best  citizens,'  the  men  high  in  business  and  social 
life,  who  by  backing  up  or  by  preventing  the  punishment  of 
wealthy  criminals  set  the  seal  of  their  approval  on  crime  and 
give  honor  to  rich  felons.  The  most  powerful  ally  of  law^- 
lessness  and  mob  violence  is  the  man,  whoever  he  may  be, 
politician  or  business  man,  judge  or  lawyer,  capitalist  or 
editor,  who  in  any  way  or  shape  works  so  as  to  shield 
wealthy  and  powerful  wrongdoers  from  the  consequences  of 
their  misconduct. 

"You  have  heart-breaking  difficulties  with  which  to  con- 
tend. You  have  to  fight  not  only  the  banded  powers  of 
evil,  but,  alas,  that  it  should  be  said,  the  supineness  and 
indifference  of  many  good  men  upon  whose  zealous  support 
you  had  a  right  to  feel  that  you  could  rely.  Do  not  be 
discouraged:  do  not  flinch.  You  are  in  a  fight  for  plain 
decency,  for  the  plain  democracy  of  the  plain  people,  who 
believe  in  honesty  and  in  fair  dealing  as  between  man  and 
man.  Do  not  become  disheartened.  Keep  up  the  fight. 
"Very   sincerclv  vours, 

"THEODORE    ROOSEVELT. 

"Rudolph  Spreckels,   Esq., 
"San    Francisco,    Cal." 


XXVlll 

GOVERNOR   JOHNSON'S   STATEMENT   REGARDING 

RUEF'S  IMPRISONMENT. 

(See  Chapter  XXIX,  page  453.) 

Ever  since  Abraham  Ruef  was  taken  to  San  Quentin  an 
organized  and  systematic  agitation  has  been  carried  on  to 
effect  his  release,  and  all  that  power,  influence  and  money 
and  favorable  publicity  could  do  to  manufacture  public  sen- 
timent for  him  has  been  done.  His  case  has  ever  been  be- 
fore the  people,  and  never  since  his  confinement  at  San 
Quentin  has  he  been  permitted  to  be  in  the  category  of 
the   ordinary   prisoner. 

Purposely  have  I  heretofore  refrained  from  any  public 
utterance  upon  the  subject,  and  this  for  reasons  that  may 
be  obvious.  Ruef's  partisans  now  charge  his  failure  to  ob- 
tain  his  release  to  ine. 

In  so  far  as  I  have  expressed  my  views  to  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  Prison  Directors,  and  their  views  accord  with 
mine,   I   accept  the  responsibility. 

I  do  not  believe  that  Ruef  should  be  paroled  at  this 
time.  I  insist  that  he  shall  be  treated  just  like  any  ordi- 
nary prisoner,  neither  more  harshly  nor  more  leniently. 

As  vigorously  as  I  am  able,  I  demand  that  there  shall 
be  no  special  privilege  in  the  prisons  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  that  when  special  privilege  has  been  banished 
from  every  department  of  government,  it  shall  not  be  per- 
mitted, no  matter  what  the  power  or  threats,  to  creep  into 
our  penitentiary. 

The  grossest  injustice  that  could  be  committed  against 
the  other  3,300  men  confined  in  our  State  prisons  would  be 
to  single  out  the  one  rich,  powerful  and  conspicuous  of- 
fender and,  because  of  his  riches  and  his  influence,  grant 
him  what  is  denied  to  the  humble  and  friendless  prisoner. 
If  prisons  are  to  be  maintained,  and  the  system  in  vogue 
continued,  all  prisoners  must  be  treated  exactly  alike. 

Since  the  parole  law  went  into  effect,  the  Prison  Direct- 
ors have  continuously  acted  under  a  rule  which  required, 
save  in  exceptional  cases,  the  service  of  half  of  the  net 
sentence  before  an  application  can  be  heard.  In  the  Rob- 
erts case,  recently  decided,  the  Supreme  Court  held  this 
rule  to  be  illegal,  but  also  held  that  paroles  rested  in  the 
absolute  discretion  of  the  Prison  Directors,  and  that  in  de- 
termining whether  or  not  parole  shall  be  granted,  it  was 
the  right  and  duty  of  the  Board  to  take  into  account  the 
length  of  sentence,  the  time  served,  etc. 

As  I  understand  the  attitude  of  the  Directors,  they  in- 
sist that  in  the  matter  of  granting  paroles,  although  appli- 
cations  may    be    made    after   one    year,    it    is    neither    unjust 


XXIX 

nor  unfair  nor  illegal  that  prisoners  be  required,  save  in 
exceptional  cases,  to  serve  half  the  net  sentence. 

This  rule  is  applicable  .to  3,300  prisoners,  most  of  them 
unknown  and  unheard  of.  It  is  demanded  that  another 
rule  be  made  for  Ruef. 

Ruef's  sentence  was  fourteen  years.  His  net  sentence 
will  be  eight  years  and  ten  months.  Half  of  the  net  sen- 
tence will  be  four  years  and  five  months.  He  was  received 
in  San  Quentin  about  March,  1911.  If  required  to  serve 
half  his  net  sentence,  presumably  he  will  be  paroled  about 
August,  1915.  Purposely,  apparently,  misapprehension  has 
been  created  about  the  recent  parole  of  Dalton.  Dalton 
desired  to  be  liberated  before  half  his  net  sentence  had 
been  served,  and  was  not.  He  was  granted  a  parole  at  the 
last  meeting  of  the  Prison  Directors,  which  takes  effect 
some  months  after  the  completion  of  half  of  his  net  sen- 
tence. 

The  Recent  Action  of  the  Prison  Board. 

In  behalf  of  the  parole  of  Ruef  it  is  insisted  that  any 
man  is  entitled  as  a  matter  of  right  to  a  parole  after  one 
year's  imprisonment.  I  will  not  subscribe  to  this  doctrine. 
It  has  been  asserted  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  so  de- 
cided. This  is  not  true.  The  Supreme  Court  simply  deter- 
mined that  after  one  year  the  prisoner  had  the  right  to 
make  his  application,  but  that  his  parole  rested  absolutely 
thereafter  in  the  discretion  of  the   Prison  Board. 

At  the  last  meeting  of  the  Prison  Directors  78  men  ap- 
plied for  parole,  Ruef  among  them.  None  of  these  had 
served  half  his  net  time  and  this  fact  was  known  to  all  the 
members  of  the  Prison  Board.  To  four  members  of  the 
Prison  Board  before  that  time  every  application  had  been 
presented  with  the  history  of  the  case,  and  with  all  the 
facts  that  had  been  filed  concerning  it.  Every  man,  prison 
director  or  other,  knows  the  facts  of  the  Ruef  case.  The 
78  were  all  denied  parole.  When  the  Ruef  people  assert 
he  had  no  hearing,  they  mean  he  had  no  such  hearing  as 
Ruef  desired.  When  they  shout  that  his  case  was  not  con- 
sidered, they  mean  not  considered  as  Ruef  demanded.  If 
the  hearing  had  been  as  Ruef  and  his  partisans  had  staged 
it;  if  Ruef  had  delivered  an  oration,  taken  down  by  the 
shorthand  reporter,  brought  for  the  purpose;  if  Ruef  had 
dominated  the  entire  situation,  and  the  Directors  had 
yielded  to  his  power  and  his  influence;  if  Ruef  had  been 
paroled,  what  a  virtuous  and  glorious  Prison  Board  it 
would  have  been!  But  the  hearing  being  otherwise  than 
had  been  staged,  the  determination  being  other  than  what 
the   power   of  Ruef  demanded,   the    Prison    Board   is   abused 


XXX 


and  denounced;  not  denounced  or  abused  because  11  other 
men  were  not  paroled  (they  are  unknown,  poor,  helpless, 
without  friends),  but  abused  and  denounced  because  one 
man,  Ruef,  was  not  paroled;  because  one  man,  Ruef,  was 
treated  exactly  as  all  others  were  treated. 

The   Charge  of  Bitterness  and  Vengeance. 

I  resent  any  imputation  of  bitterness  or  revenge  on  my 
part  toward  Ruef.  I  have  neither.  More  than  two  years 
ago  I  expressed  what  I  write  to-day — that  for  the  sake  of 
society  and  the  unfortunates  confined  in  prison,  Ruef  must 
be  treated  like  all  others  similarly  situated.  To  yield  be- 
cause of  fear  to  the  persuasion,  cajolery  or  the  threats  of 
a  powerful  prisoner,  is  to  cause  the  iron  to  enter  the  soul 
of  every  obscure  and  friendless  prisoner,  and  to  make  every 
other  one  of  the  3,300  men  in  our  jails  know  that  even  in 
prisons  class  distinctions  prevail,  and  to  add  to  the  bitter- 
ness and  the  hopelessness  of  men  confined. 

The  bitterness  and  revenge  are  on  the  other  side  of 
this  controversy.  It  has  become  necessary  to  make  this 
statement  because  of  the  unmerited  abuse  of  the  Prison 
Board,  and  because  some  individuals,  while  begging  mercy 
for  Ruef,  have  without  mercy  sought  Ruef's  release  by 
threats  of  annihilation  and  destruction  of  all  opposed. 

The  Plea  That  the  Past  Be  Forgotten. 

Often  we  hear  that  Ruef  is  the  only  one  who  has  been 
punished  of  those  guilty  of  the  particular  crimes  of  which 
he  was  a  part,  and  that   for  this  reason   should  be  liberated. 

If  three  men  committed  a  murder,  two  escape  and  are 
never  found,  and  the  third  is  convicted,  ought  he  to  be  re- 
leased because  he  is  the  only  one  punished? 

It  is  unnecessary,  however,  to  discuss  this  phase  of  the 
case.  After  conviction  and  imprisonment,  if  clemency  be 
asked,  ordinarily  the  only  question  that  can  be  considered 
is  whether  the  prisoner  is  guilty  or  innocent.  Does  any 
person  claim  Ruef  to  be  innocent?  If  guilty,  then  to  him 
must  apply  the  usual  prison   discipline  and   rules. 

There  is  to-day  in  the  same  prison  with  Ruef  a  poor, 
uneducated,  friendless  Greek,  the  product  of  the  graft  prose- 
cution just  as  Ruef  is.  Claudianes  is  serving  a  life  sentence 
for  dynamiting  Gallagher's  residence  and  almost  murdering 
seven  people.  Claudianes  was  paid  to  do  the  dynamiting 
that  Gallagher  might  be  put  out  of  the  way.  He  was  the 
ignorant,  sodden  instrument  of  men  who  would  not  stop 
even  at  murder;  but  he  was  only  the  miserable  tool  after 
all.  No  appeal  has  been  made  to  me  for  Claudianes.  No 
petitions    have    been    presented    in    his    behalf,    no    organized 


XXXI 

effort  for  his  release,  no  threats  of  political  annihilation 
unless  clemency  be  extended  to  him.  Why?  Is  it  because 
Claudianes   is   unknown,   ignorant,    friendless,   moneyless? 

The  Unjust  Charge  of  Racial  Prejudice. 

Every  cheap  politician  has  been  quick  to  seize  upon  the 
Ruef  case  and  endeavor  to  make  political  capital  for  himself 
or  create  hostility  to  me  out  of  it.  Among  the  baseless 
and  outrageous  things  that  have  been  published  is  that 
Ruef  is  not  granted  special  privileges  and  immunities  be- 
cause of  racial  prejudice.  When  Ruef  was  denied  parole, 
denied  with  him  were  men  of  many  races.  No  one  has 
claimed  that  these  were  denied  parole  because  of  race 
prejudice. 

In  San  Quentin  to-day  are  thirty-one  Jews.  Thirteen 
of  these,  for  one  reason  or  another,  have  at  times  lost  their 
privileges.  Is  it  possible  that  Ruef  is  the  only  man  to  be 
considered?  No  complaint  is  made  for  the  thirty-one,  or 
for  the  thirteen.  Since  February  1,  1912,  twenty-seven  Jews 
have  been  paroled  from  San  Quentin.  Six  of  these  have 
been  returned  for  violations  of  parole.  In  relation  to  the 
twenty-seven  or  the  six  there  has  been  neither  outcry  nor 
protest  nor  publicity  nor  effort  of  any  sort.  Why  the  as- 
tounding, organized  effort  and  publicity  campaign  for  Ruef 
alone? 

The  appointments  that  have  been  made  by  this  adminis- 
tration include  Rabbi  Meyer,  H.  Weinstock,  Paul  Sins- 
heimer,  Simon  Lubin,  Miss  Steinhart,  Julius  Jacobs,  E. 
Franklin,  Louis  Frankenheimer,  A.  Sapiro,  Jacob  Alexander, 
A.  Bonnheim,  Miss  Peixotto,  Judge  Cerf  and  many  others. 
No  list  of  more  able  and  patriotic  men  and  women  in  the 
service   of  any   State   could   be   furnished   than   this. 

Is   Ruef  the   sole  test  of  every   question? 

To  two  young  men  of  Jewish  faith  lately  have  been 
granted  pardons.  No  tremendous  petitions  loaded  down 
with  the  names  of  politicians,  no  extraordinary  publicity 
was  presented  in  their  behalf. 

Is  there  no  man  in  the  list  of  appointees  to  whom  in 
pride  we  may  all  yield  our  praise?  Is  there  no  man  among 
the  3,300  prisoners  in  San  Quentin  and  Folsom  who  justly 
can  arouse  efforts  in  his  behalf?  Or  is  the  sole  test  of 
official  action  by  the  Prison  Directors  of  California  or  the 
Chief  Executive  of  the  State  to  be  the  disregard  of  every 
other  man's  rights  and  the  granting  to  Ruef  alone  of  a 
privilege   that  none   other  enjoys? 

California  Prisons  To-day. 

In    the    discussion    that    has    ensued    from    the    Ruef    case 


XXXll 

and  because  of  the  Ruef  case,  the  prisons  have  been  said 
to  be  the  one  part  of  the  present  administration  that  is 
not  progressive,  and  that  they  are  yet  a  relic  of  the  Herrin 
machine.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  fact.  I  chal- 
lenge contradiction  of  the  following  statements: 

California  is  in  the  forefront  of  all  the  States  in  the 
management  of  her  prisons.  In  matters  of  food,  shelter, 
clothing,  employment,  recreation,  medical  attention,  oppor- 
tunities for  education,  general  freedom  consistent  with  dis- 
cipline, encouragement  of  decent  tendencies,  and  in  the 
number  of  paroles  (although  these  have  been  granted  under 
the  half  term  rule),  no  State  has   gone  further. 

Within  the  past  three  years  the  strait-jacket,  the  water- 
cure  and  the  hooks,  once  so  freely  used,  have  not  been 
tolerated.  Every  form  of  corporal  punishment  has  been 
abolished.  When  prisoners  are  received  the  effort  is  made 
to  get  the  history  of  the  crime  and  possible  cause  of  it, 
and  then  to  apply  corrective  measures  intelligently.  As 
soon  as  received,  every  newcomer  is  given  a  thorough  phys- 
ical examination  and  his  teeth  are  looked  after  by  a  den- 
tist. It  not  infrequently  happens  that  the  first  place  a  man 
is  quartered  in  is  the  hospital.  Special  attention  is  given 
to  tuberculars,  alcoholics  and  dope  fiends.  Wassermann 
tests  are  made  for  the  slightest  indication  of  blood  taint, 
and  the  best  treatment  afforded.  After  the  physician  and 
dentist  conclude  their  examinations,  the  newcomer  is  turned 
over  to  the  Director  of  Education,  who  endeavors  to  take 
the  man's  mental  measurement  and  get  at  his  moral  status. 
There  are  now  200  pupils  in  the  day  school  at  San  Quen- 
tin,  and  three  rooms  of  thirty  each  in  the  night  school. 
The  educational  facilities  are  being  constantly  increased. 
Two  hundred  and  twenty-six  are  enrolled  in  the  academic 
courses  with  the  University  of  California  and  by  cor- 
respondence are  receiving  their  training  from  our  great 
institutions  of  learning.  The  State  Use  system,  which  was 
enacted  in  1911,  furnishes  work  in  industries  for  the  State. 
In  the  matter  of  food  the  State  purchases  the  best  and 
the  rations  issued  are  abundant.  Sanitary  conditions  are  a 
model  in  the  newly  constructed  portions  of  the  prison  and 
the    best    possible    in    the    old    construction. 

In  the  last  three  years  1372  paroles  have  been  granted 
by  this  harsh,  cruel  and  outrageous  Prison  Board,  as  against 
1132  granted  in  all  the  years  from  1893  to  1910  inclusive. 
The  paroles  have  been  granted,  however,  justly.  Because 
one  was  not  granted  unjustly  and  unfairly,  the  record  of 
the  Prison  Board  counts  for  naught. 

I  have  purposely  refrained  from  discussing  the  character 


XXXlll 

of  Ruef's  crimes  or  any  matters  extraneous  to  the  one  issue 
presented.  I  have  tried  to  make  clear  that  I  believe  Ruef 
should  be  treated  just  as  the  least  known  prisoner  is  treated. 
I'hat  his  advocates  wish  him  to  be  treated  otherwise  because 
he  is  Ruef  will  be  clear  to  any  who  will  reflect  that  had 
Rucf  been  paroled  and  the  other  11  denied  parole  there 
would  have  been  no  agitation;  if  Ruef  were  granted  what 
others  were  denied,  there  would  be  no  fulminations  against 
the  Prison  Board  and  petty  politicians  would  not  have 
seized  upon  recent  events  to  bow  and  scrape  and  bend  and 
crawl  to  the  organized  power  of  Ruef. 


SCHMITZ'S    ATTEMPT   TO    CONTROL    SAN    FRAN- 
CISCO   RELIEF   FUNDS. 

In  the  early  part  of  June,  1906,  it  was  agreed  that  a 
committee  consisting  of  Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler,  Judge  W. 
\V.  Morrow  and  James  D.  Phelan  should  go  to  Washing- 
ton, in  order  to  interest  Congress  in  some  project  for 
financing  the  rebuilding  of  San  Francisco. 

Before  their  departure,  Mayor  Schmitz  invited  them  and 
other  members  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty  to  his  residence, 
where  a  luncheon  was  served.  During  the  luncheon  he 
stated  that  the  Board  of  Supervisors  were  about  to  resume 
their  public  functions  for  which  they  were  elected  by  the 
people,  and  the  private  persons  who  were  administering  the 
affairs  of  the  city  doubtless  would  employ  their  abilities 
for  the  rehabilitation  of  their  own  business,  and  he  sug- 
gested that  the  relief  fund  be  turned  over  to  the  Board  of 
Supervisors  for  distribution.  Judge  Morrow,  Mr.  Phelan  and 
others  protested  that  it  was  not  the  function  of  the  Super- 
visors to  distribute  relief,  and  that  there  was  a  trust  rela- 
tionship existing  between  the  donors  and  the  finance  com- 
mittee of  the  Relief  and  Red  Cross  Funds.  After  the  lunch- 
eon, the  Mayor  handed  Mr.  Phelan  his  transportation,  but 
later  in  the  afternoon  Mr.  Phelan,  suspicious  of  his  purpose, 
sent  word  to  the  Mayor  that  he  had  decided  to  remain  in 
the  city.     He   remained  behind   to   protect  the  funds. 

.'\s  subsequently  developed  in  the  graft  investigations, 
the  Supervisors  had  accused  the  Mayor  of  abandoning  the 
city  government  to  his  enemies,  and  insisted  upon  the  en- 
joyment of  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  their  office,  and 
that  the  work  of  distributing  relief  at  that  time  was  the 
principal  business  of  the  city. 

17 


XXXIV 


RECEIPTS    AND     DISBURSEMENTS    OF    PROSECU- 
TION FROM  JUNE,  1906,  TO  MAY  17,  1909. 


(As  shown  by  testimouy  taken  at  trial  of  Patrick  Calhoun.) 
RECEIPTS. 

Subscription  account $  73,384.75 

Subscription  account  R.  Spreckels 138,478.05 

Cash  received  by  W.  J.  Burns 1,278.70 

Refunded  by  the  Bulletin  account  Older  case 250.00 

$213,391.50 


DISBURSEMENTS. 

W.  J.  BURNS  ACCOUNT:  W.  J.  Burns  account,  per- 
sonal, $12,357.45;  office  expenses,  $1,911.43;  office  furniture, 
$671.50;  carriage  hire,  $27.25;  auto  hire,  $2,700.75;  auto  ex- 
pense, $4,162.36;  traveling  expense,  $1,302.15;  telegrams, 
$797.79;  The  Bulletin,  $309.55;  incidentals,  $158.50;  paid  for 
account  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco,  $223.52;  detective 
services.  $70,572.65;  detective  expenses,  $27,277.35;  extra  sal- 
aries, $778.55.     Total,  $123,250.80. 

F.  J.  HENEY  ACCOUNT:  Rent,  $3,186.25;  office  ex- 
pense, $1,522.02;  private  exchange  and  operator,  $1,949.22; 
telegrams,  $316.82;  postage  and  messenger  expense,  $280.26; 
traveling  expense,  $118.45;  office  salaries,  $8,684.67;  office 
furniture,  $433.50;  auto  and  carriage  hire,  $957.05;  steno- 
graphic and  legal  expense,  $2,147.37;  detective  expense, 
$4,232.61.     Total,  $23,828.22. 

SUNDRY  DISBURSEMENTS:  P.  Dolman,  $5,087.65; 
Hiram  W.  Johnson,  $11,000.00;  J.  J.  Dwyer,  $13,400.00;  C.  W. 
Cobb,  $10,000.00;  legal  expense,  official  count  for  judges, 
$191.50;  George  J.  Cleary,  $70.00;  L.  Kavanaugh,  $506.20; 
D.  M.  Duffy,  $1,878.85;  W.  J.  Burns,  $17,195.00;  Jas.  Foley, 
$1,010.00;  Miler  &  Co.,  $40.00;  automobiles,  $5,100.00;  auto 
expense,   $815.98.     Total,   $66,295.18. 

Total   disbursements    $213,374.20 

Balance,  cash    17.30 


$21.3,391.50 


ITEMS,  W.  J.  BURNS  ACCOUNT. 

Personal:      Salary,   $8,548.80;    subsistence,   $2,081.75;    rent, 
$1,726.90.     Total,  $12,357.45. 

Office    Expenses:      Rent    (R.    L.    Radke    Co.),    $935.00; 


XXXV 


telephone,  P.  S.  T.  &  T.  Co.,  $398.93;  light  and  heat— E.  D. 
Feil,  $25.00;  W.  G.  Stafford,  $8.00;  mantels,  $0.95— $33.95 ; 
towels  (Star  Towel  Sup.  Co.),  $15.80;  newspapers,  $46.40; 
P.  O.  Box,  U.  S.  A.,  $12.00;  stamps,  U.  S.  A.,  $20.40;  Purity 
Water  Co.,  $12.00;  advertising— Call,  $1.60;  Examiner,  $3.40 
—$5.00;  car  fare,  $3.20;  stationary— Library  Bureau,  $7.40; 
Mysell-Rollins,  $3.00;  Barry  Co.,  $9.75;  Brown  &  Power, 
$59.90;  E.  H.  Wobber  and  others,  $76.70— $156.75;  typewriter 
expense— Vaughn,  $56.30;  Revalk,  $77.10;  Underwood,  $5.50 
—$138.90;  stenographic,  $43.80  (L.  F.  Hurlburt,  et  al.); 
incidentals — pans,  $0.40;  opening  Marchand's  safe,  $10.00; 
safe  dep.  Crocker,  $6.00;  painting  floor,  $1.00;  N.  Y.  Ex- 
change, $0.95;  express  charges,  $8.40;  keys,  $3.25;  paint, 
$1.00;  tel.  directory,  $1.50;  stars  (spec),  $5.25;  city  directo- 
ries, $9.00;  elect,  buzzer,  $1.35;  show  cards  (A.  Unsworth), 
$18.50;  show  card  frames  (Young  &  Rhodes),  $2.00;  whet- 
stone, $0.70;  hauling,  $5.00;  moving  safe  (Gorham  &  Thom- 
as), $15.00— $89.30.     Total  office  expenses,  $1,911.43. 

Office  Furniture:  Lamp,  $3.55;  two  desk  lamps,  $7.80; 
J.  Brenner  Co.,  $68.00;  water  heater,  $19.20;  Library  Bureau, 
$78.00;  Ladd's  Gun  Store,  $55.50;  safe  (Freeman,  Brewster, 
McCabe).  $165.00;  2  gas  heaters,  $13.10;  Spencer  Desk  Co., 
$37.50;  Geo.  Walcom  (curtains)  $3.35;  E.  Emerson  (desk), 
$10.00;  Olympic  Arms  Co.,  $28.55;  Library  Bureau,  $40.50; 
L.  &  E.  Emanuel,  $12.00;  Acme  Furn.  Co.,  $96.75;  Hale's, 
$23.20;  C.  P.  Stanton,  $9.50.     Total,  $671.50. 

Carriage  Hire:  Kelly,  $2.50,  $4.00,  $5.00,  $3.00,  $12.75. 
Total,  $27.25. 

Auto  Hire:  Scott,  $15.00,  $5.00,  $50.00,  $65.00,  $10.00; 
H.  M.  Owens,  $20.00;  W.  J.  Burns,  $90.00;  Alarch  30th, 
$207.50;  Ruef's  arrest,  $10.00;  F.  J.  Heney,  $10.00;  W.  J. 
Burns,  $5.00;  April  27th,  $32.50;  L.  Heidinger,  $25.00;  Auto 
Livery  Co.,  $73.50,  $92.50;  Kelly,  $32.50;  Otis  Patkhill, 
$45.00;  Auto  L.  Co.,  $538.00;  A.  S.  Lathaw,  $105.00;  Auto 
Livery  Co.,  $296.50,  $60.00,  $20.00;  M.  Mamlock,  $17.50;  auto 
Livery,  $78.00;  Cal.  &  Coulter,  $25.00;  F.  Coulter,  $42.50; 
Auto  Livery  Co.,  $25.00;  Auto  Livery  Co.,  $288.00;  Zim- 
merline  Bros.,  $5.75;  Auto  Livery  Co..  $132.50,  $22.50, 
$190.50,  $35.00,  $22.50;  Broadway  Garage,  $8.00.  Total, 
$2,700.75. 

Auto  Expense:  Goggles,  $3.50;  sundries,  $9.35;  Harris 
Rubber  Co.,  $120.98;  Harris  Rubber  Co.,  $70.10;  Geo.  P. 
Moore  Co.,  $12.30;  Geo.  P.  Moore  Co.,  $9.35;  Harris  Rub- 
ber Co.,  $48.58;  Chanslor  Lyon,  $30.88;  Harris  Rubber  Co.. 
$24.39;  Bauer  Lamp,  $1.50;  Bauer  Lamp.  $4.50;  Auto  Livery, 
$132.00;  Auto  Livery,  $2.00;  Chans.  &  Lyon,  $12.75;  Chans. 
&  Lvon,  $14.05;  G.  P.  Moore,  $26.90;  G.  P.  Moore,  $6.12; 
Arcade  Garage,  $51.20;  towing  auto,  $5.00;  Irvine  Mch.  Wks., 


XXXVl 

$114.60-'  Harris  Rubber  Co..  $6.00;  Franklin  Car,  $59.12; 
Gillig  &  Son,  $9.00;  Gillig  &  Son,  $5.00;  Arcade  Garage, 
$149.45;  Arcade  Garage,  $134.25;  G.  P.  Moore  Co.,  $3.00; 
H.  W.  Bogen,  $103.50;  H.  VV.  Bogen,  $127.00;  Pioneer 
Auto  Co.,  $0.75;  Pioneer  Auto  Co.,  $5.40;  Gorham  Rubber 
Co.,  $35.00;  Berg  Auto  Supply  Co.,  $1.50;  Pioneer  Garage, 
$6.00;  Keenan  Bros.,  $51.80;  Keenan  Bros.,  $23.05;  Pioneer 
Garage,  $186.70;  Diamond  Rubber  Co.,  $222.50;  Pioneer 
Auto  Co.,  $2.50;  Pioneer  Auto  Co.,  $24.00;  Auto  Livery  Co., 
$166.00;  G.  P.  Moore,  $2.50;  G.  P.  Moore,  $4.50;  Harris 
Rubber  Co.,  $2.25;  Arcade,  $151.60;  Arcade,  $151:50;  Bogan. 
$9.75;  Bogan,  $39.00;  Pioneer,  $3.00;  Pioneer.  $1.00;  tire 
repair,  $0.75;  Pacific  Gar.,  $12.85;  Pacific  Gar..  $97.40;  Arcade. 
$123.35;  Keenan,  $11.00;  Keenan,  $13.95;  Chans.  &  L.,  $3.25; 
Chans.  &  L.,  $2.50;  Bogen,  $9.85;  Bogen.  $7.00;  Osen  & 
Hunter,  $109.45;  Pacific  Gar.,  $5.25;  Pacific  Gar.,  $70.00; 
Irvington  Garage,  $71.50;  Pioneer,  $8.50;  Pioneer,  $6.00; 
J.  E.  Elkington  &  Sons,  $55.50;  Continental  R.  Co.,  $88.88; 
Schwartz  &  Gotlieb.  $8.00;  C.  &  L.,  $12.45;  Pacific,  $9.75; 
Pacific,  $11.25;  Spreckels  Garage,  $384.85;  Sunset  Garage, 
$14.50;  Spreckels  Garage,  $82.65;  Pioneer,  $7.00;  Letcher, 
S.  Tose.  $4.00;  Keenan,  $104.05;  Pioneer  Auto  Co.,  $10.50; 
Pacific,  $29.10;  Halls  Auto  Rep..  $32.30;  Studebaker.  $17.91; 
Arcade,  $159.15;  Spreckels  Garage,  $185.25;  Jerome  Garage, 
$2.25;  Miller  Bros.,  $8.75;  Goodyear,  $5.00;  Cr.  H.  W.  Bogen, 
$10.00.      Net    total,   $4,162.36. 

Traveling  Expense:  Kendall  to  Portland,  $20.00;  Ferry, 
$1.05;  Halsey,  $493.40;  Geo.  Burns,  round  trip  home.  $130.00; 
baggage  transfer,  $1.50;  trip  to  Oakland,  auto,  etc.,  $7.10; 
trip  to  Oakland,  auto,  etc.,  $6.60;  B.  T.  Block  to  San 
Tose,  $2.15;  ferryage  auto,  etc.,  $15.35;  ferrvage  auto,  etc., 
$6.60;  F.  A.  Leach,  $230.00;  B.  A.  Libby,  $100.00;  ferryage, 
auto,  etc.,  $1.90;  ferryage  auto,  etc.,  $1.90;  ferryage  auto,  etc., 
$1.00;  W.  J.  Burns  to  Los  Angeles.  $57.40;  W.  J.  Burns, 
$2.10;  Slater  witness  Ford  case,  $168.90;  trips  Okd.  Galla- 
gher case,  $13.20;  Marie  Ware  McK.  Port.  S.  F.  Ret.,  $50.00; 
Cr.  F.  H.  Leach,  witness  Ford  case,  $8.00.  Net  total, 
$1,302.15. 

Telegrams:     $797.79. 

The   Bulletin:     30.000  papers    (10-31,   1908)    $309.55. 

Incidentals:  Christmas  turkeys,  $37.85;  5  glove  orders, 
$10.00;  theater  party,  $6.00;  C.  P.  Stanton  (burglar  alarm), 
$57.25;  S.  F.  Call  1400  Jones,  $2.25;  expense  account  Blake 
case,  $3.50;  lunches,  W.  J.  Burns  et  al,  $41.65.  Total, 
$158.50. 

Paid  for  account  City  and  County  of  San  Francisco: 
Exchange  on  Washington,  D.  C,  sent  to  F.  A.  Leach,  wit- 
ness,  to    cover   expenses   to    S.    F.,  $250.00;   less   amount   re- 


XXXVll 

funded    by    Citv    and    County    of    San    Francisco,    $26.48 — 
^223.52. 

Detective  Services  and  Expenses:  D.  F.  Cecil,  services 
$2,396.00,  expenses  $942.50;  H.  J.  Woolman,  services  $476.00, 
expenses  $328.00;  R.  J.  Bergen,  services  $708.00,  expenses 
$510.50;  R.  H.  Perry,  $3,095.00,  expenses  $1,318.05;  I.  H. 
Henderson,  services  $350.00,  expenses  $188.85;  E.  S.  Spauld- 
ing,  services  $2,820.00.  expenses  $550.70;  W.  W.  Farrell, 
services  $704.00,  expenses  $196.50;  L.  G.  Carpenter,  services 
$225.00;  expenses,  $170.20;  R.  S.  Spaulding,  services  $2,042.00, 
expenses  $378.25;  J.  G.  Lawlor,  services  $2,837.50,  expenses 
$1,221.63;  I.  J.  Scott,  expenses  $30.00;  E.  G.  Borden,  serv- 
ices $78.00;  P.  Hendirard,  services  $202.00,  expenses  $200.55; 
R.  J.  Burns,  $2,810.00,  expenses  $2,076.47;  S.  S.  Simon, 
services  $206.00;  B.  Kohlman,  services  $248.00,  expenses 
$18.75;  G.  E.  Burns,  services  $2,510.00,  expenses  $4,369.62; 
C.  F.  Oliver,  services  $2,920.00,  expenses  $833.85;  C.  P. 
Fox.  services  $472.50,  expenses  $265.35;  S.  G.  R.  Ollsen, 
$40.00;  G.  W.  Hess,  $1,595.00,  expenses  $1,250.22;  J.  Mc- 
Carthy, services  $1,313.00,  expenses  $227.35;  J.  C.  Saulman, 
services  $110.00.  expenses  $1.20;  L.  Pring,  services  $44.00; 
L.  Cullen,  services  $60.00;  M.  C.  Doyle,  services  $52.00;  D. 
M.  Duffy,  services  $150.00;  Chas.  Wyman,  services  $20.00; 
A.  Steffens,  $45.00;  A.  Greggains.  services  $780.00.  expenses 
$665.85;  J.  H.  Shiner,  services  $480.00.  expenses  $310.80; 
P.  F.  Roller.  $290.00,  expenses  $349.20;  P.  E.  Sowers, 
services  $410.00,  expenses  $284.10;  T.  R.  Sullivan,  services 
$320.00,  expenses  $328.55;  D.  McCarthy,  services  $948.00, 
expenses  $114.21;  J.  Compton,  services  $1,880.00,  expenses 
$81.40;  R.  Ellis,  services  $246.00.  expenses  $6.00;  P. 
Bergin,  services  $20.00,  expenses  $17.00;  C.  P.  Stanton, 
services  $2,645.00.  expenses  $4.20;  H.  Sullivan,  services 
$95.00,  expenses  $1.70;  J.  S.  Hensley,  services  $140.00;  James 
Foley,  services  $2,335.00.  expenses  $134.10;  J.  F.  Severney. 
services  $285.00,  expenses  $15.55;  A.  Hornberg,  services 
$44.00;  E.  W.  Stow,  services  $342.00.  expenses  $216.60;  G. 
M.  Insley,  $1,417.00,  expenses  $414.45;  B.  F.  Daman,  serv- 
ices $1,148.00,  expenses  $529.80;  L.  C.  Caldwell,  $896.00,  ex- 
penses $360.25;  R.  N.  Hamlin,  services  $1,902.00,  expenses 
$50.00;  F.  Kingsberg.  services  $90.00;  W.  Bettiee,  services 
$1,068.00.  expenses  $164.25;  W.  J.  Dewer,  services  $160.00; 
J.  F.  Clark,  services  $1,072.00,  expenses  $501.29;  W.  J. 
Biggy,  Jr..  services  $260.00,  expenses  $35.40;  M.  C.  Perry, 
services  $144.00.  expenses  $109.00;  C.  A.  Spaulding,  services 
$336.00.  expenses  $109.70;  E.  T.  Newsome.  services  $364.00, 
expenses  $58.85;  F.  J.  Barry,  services  $32.00;  J.  H.  Hamil- 
ton, services  $26.00;  R.  C.  Schindler.  services  $1,483.00,  ex- 
penses   $706.85;     W.    S.     Schindler,    services,    $1,161.00,     ex- 


XXXVlll 

penses  $224.15;  O.  G.  Schleicher,  services  $340.00,  expenses 
$122.66;  E.  A.  Piatt,  services  $1,205.00,  expenses  $315.20; 
W.  H.  Russell,  services  $1,305.00,  expenses  $298.30;  S.  B. 
Priest,  services  $210.00,  expenses  $1.40;  E.  J.  Whiskatchies, 
services  $1,200.00,  expenses  $484.85;  E.  W.  Madden,  services 
$255.00,  expenses  $33.35;  J.  M.  Creighton,  services  $1,494.00, 
expenses  $667.60;  G.  E.  Madden,  services  $30.00,  expenses 
$1.70;  J.  Crawford,  services  $35.00;  E.  Graf,  services  $20.00; 
expenses  $7.00;  W.  Duchion,  services  $100.00;  J.  V.  Thomp- 
son, services  $72.00,  expenses  $13.00;  F.  C.  Boden,  expenses 
$62.35;  F.  F.  McGee,  services  $50.00;  M.  L.  Doyle,  services 
$286.00;  E.  M.  Burgoyne,  services  $84.00,  expenses  $53.95; 
C.  Bernstein,  services  $64.00;  E.  Goldstein,  services  $92.00, 
expenses  $15.25;  H.  C.  Wilier,  services  $216.00;  J.  W.  F. 
Jackson,  services  $384.00,  expenses  $178.50;  D.  L.  Chiles, 
services  $20.00;  Mrs.  May  Schindler,  services  $154.50,  ex- 
penses $3.50;  L.  Gold,  services  $805.00,  expenses  $58.65;  J.  M. 
Ullmache,  services  $40.00,  expenses  $93.20;  C.  P.  Snell,  ser- 
vices $12.00,  expenses  $0.65;  W.  C.  Heney,  services  $1,939.00, 
expenses  $20.05;  E.  C.  Lange,  services  $42.00;  expenses  $2.60; 
E.  Emerson,  services  $365.00,  expenses  $79.15;  J.  McKenzie, 
services  $47.00;  O.  Hooper,  services  $85.00,  expenses  $12.45; 
Geo.  Mane,  services  $15.00;  Chas.  Cook,  services  $40.00,  ex- 
penses $0.80;  C.  T.  Oliver,  Jr.,  services  $236.00,  expenses 
$25.80;  D.  W.  Armstrong,  services  $5.00;  F.  A.  Neary,  serv- 
ices $280.00,  expenses  $42.50;  P.  D.  Code,  services  $280.00, 
expenses  $35.65;  Martin  Judge,  services  $40.00;  J.  D.  Silver- 
thevv^,  services  $14.00,  expenses  $1.71;  G.  Hague,  services 
$68.00;  W.  J.  Kelly,  services  $199.00,  expenses  $3.75;  S.  G. 
Whitney,  services  $52.00,  expenses  $6.65;  C.  F.  Schneider, 
services  $148.00,  expenses  $9.30;  L.  R.  Mower,  services 
$34.00,  expenses  $26.50;  G.  L.  Doolittle,  services  $26.00, 
expenses  $7.10;  W.  A.  Conneau,  services  $25.00,  expenses 
$2.20;  E.  S.  Newsome,  services  $125.00;  J.  M.  Creighton, 
services  $615.00,  expenses  $200.00;  H.  Beasly,  services 
$175.00;  L.  J.  Cass,  services  $155.00;  L.  Murphy,  services 
$230.00;  Ed.  Hornback,  services  $71.00;  E.  M.  ,  ser- 
vices $435.00,  expenses  $44.80;  P.  Berr,  services  $36.00;  S.  J. 
Rohan,  services  $70.00;  Geo.  Yearaner,  services  $237.50,  ex- 
penses $11.60;  E.  Vetisarator,  services  $63.00;  F.  C.  Boden, 
services  $150.00;  T.  C.  McGiff,  services  $12.00;  H.  J.  Lovent- 
zen,  services  $680.00,  expenses  $471.25;  A.  H.  Barr,  services 
$748.00,  expenses  $2.00;  P.  M.  McGee,  expenses  $100.50;  N. 
Komgold,  services  $525.00,  expenses  $37.35;  E.  Gensler,  ser- 
vices $15.00,  W.  J.  Otts,  services  $510.00,  expenses  $423.85; 
J.  H.  Dewey,  services  $30.00,  expenses  $6.75;  W.  C.  Knox, 
services  $180.00;  M.  F.  ,  services  $1,162.50,  expenses 


XXXIX 


$363.00;  J.  M.  Kelly,  services  $35.00;  R.  H.  Schouatt,  services 
$161.00,  expenses  $2.25;  D.  S.  Hutchins,  services  $80.00,  ex- 
penses $40.45;  Chas.  Goff,  services  $127.15;  C.  P.  Morey,  Jr., 

services  $10.00;  S.  F. ,  services  $95;  Jesse  A.  Gahans, 

services  $30.00;  A.  Setrakian,  services  $12.00,  expenses  $14.50; 
E.  E.  Kam,  services  $10.00;  J.  Walsh,  services  $25.00.  Total 
services,   $70,572.65;    expenses,  $27,277.35. 

Extra  Salaries:  O.  F.  Holmes,  $25.00;  S.  S.  Simon, 
$5.00;  O.  F.  Holmes,  $48.25;  W.  J.  Flynn  and  2  assts.,  $73.00; 
Wyman,  $20.00;  Stefifen,  $20,00;  T.  Lonergan,  $50.00;  T. 
Lonergan,  $50.00;  T.  Lonergan,  $50.00;  Cullen-Watchman, 
$28.00;  A.  Fromberg,  $8.00;  G.  H.  Knox,  $5.00;  A.  B.  Lycaw, 
$48.80;  W.  J.  Flynn,  $50.00;  securing  information  at  Roys, 
$5.50;  D.  M.  Dufify,  $104.50;  C.  A.  Sage,  $3020;  B.  Bergen, 
$20.80;  P.  Callender,  $25.00;  P.  Callender,  $2.00;  J.  C.  Brown, 
$30.00;  D.  W.  Armstrong,  $10.00;  D.  W.  Armstrong,  $25.00; 
D.  E.  Scales,  $5.00;  Bob  Ellis,  $15.00;  D.  W.  Armstrong, 
$1.00;  S.   Hitchcock,  $1.00;  D.  Wilkie,  $25.00.     Total,  $778.55. 


ITEMS    FRANCIS    J.    HENEY    ACCOUNT. 

Rent  of  Office:     $3,186.25. 

Office  Expenses:  Water,  light,  heat  (repairs  gas  fixtures, 
$4.88;  purity  water,  $22.75;  Stafford  &  Co.,  $297.93;  S.  F. 
G.  &  E.  Co.,  $209.59;  gas  regulator,  $4.76;  Gas  Appliance 
Co.,  $18.00;  gas  mantels,  $3.00;  Bush  &  Lind,  $17.00); 
stationery  (E.  H.  Wobber  &  Co.,  et  al.,  $314.90;  numbering 
machine,  $5.00;  I.  Upham  Co.,  $97.23;  Brown  &  Power,  $1.00 
Schmidt  L.  &  L.  Co.,  $6.00;  Badescu  Prtg.  Co.,  $2.50); 
typewriter,  rental  and  supplies  (Remington  T.  W.  Co., 
$139.80;  Smith  Premier,  T.  W.,  $8.00;  Typewritorium,  $7.50); 
newspapers,  $126.15;  janitor  supplies  (scavenger,  $16.59; 
towels.  $26.44;  C.  Brown  &  Sons,  $19.80;  J.  H.  Reardon, 
$2.40;  W.  E.  Johnson,  $3.35;  Greenblatt  &  Co.,  $1.80;  New- 
man &  Levinson,  $2.55;  Brittain  &  Co.,  $19.00;  O'Connor, 
Moffatt,  $3.00;  W.  T.  Wiley,  $3.00;  H.  G.  Root,  $14.33; 
S.  P.  Co.,  $1.33;  carpet-cleaning,  $7.55;  Hill  &  Co..  $18.50); 
sundries,  C.  P.  Stanton  et  al.,  $85.14;  glazing,  $11.25.  Total, 
$1,522.02. 

Private  Exchange,  Telephone  and  Operator:     $1,949.22. 

Telegrams:     $316.82. 

Postage  and  Messenger  Service:    $280.26. 

Traveling   Expenses:     $118.45. 

Office  Salaries:  J.  H.  Reardon,  $1,050.00;  W.  E.  John- 
son, $1,650.00;  Miss  O.  O.  McShane,  $1,934.66;  Mrs.  Smith, 
$806.25;  Mrs.  L.  E.  Russell,  $2,085.00;  C.  H.  Stanton,  $377.51; 


xl 

janitress,  $156.25;  voucher  No.  1,  Jany.  31,  1907;  no  detail, 
$625.00.     Total,  $8,684.67. 

Office  Furniture:  J.  Rehrn  &  Co.,  $15.75;  Fuller  Desk 
Co.,  $27.00;  Rucker  Desk  Co.,  $142.25;  J.  Breuner  Co., 
$28.50;  O'Connor,  Mofifatt.  $91.65;  Goodyear  Rubber  Co., 
$3.50;  Sloane  &  Co.,  $52.37;  G.  Lipman,  $7.50;  Bush  &  Lind, 
$27.89;  C.  Brown  &  Sons,  $6.05;  shelving  $10.00;  Jewel  Gas 
Appliance  Co.,  $21.04.     Total,  $433.50. 

Auto  and  Carriage  Hire:  United  Carriage  Co.,  $100.25; 
Pacific  Garage,  $100.00;  Auto  Livery,  $70.00;  Kelly's,  $8.50; 
Arcade  Garage,  $5.00;  Tom  Sawyer,  $17.50;  J.  W.  Burke, 
$3.00;  Max  Mamlock,  $15.00;  T.  White,  $5.00;  L.  D.  Crane, 
$632.80.     Total,  $957.05. 

Stenographic  and  Legal  Expense:  L.  Kavanaugh, 
$1,031.00;  T.  B.  Elderkin,- $83.40;  G.  W.  Smith,  $28.00;  State 
of  California,  $3.50;  H.  Hernon,  $18.10;  County  Clerk,  $6.00; 
citation  for  Codes,  $0.37;  express  on  briefs,  $2.65;  F.  L. 
Gauhey,  $2.00;  F.  M.  Handy,  $1.50;  R.  B.  Treat,  $1.75; 
D.  W.  Burchard,  $200.00;  S.  Potter,  $15.00;  notary  fees,  $2.00; 
H.  Harper,  $96.15;  C.  Bennett,  $5.00;  A.  W.  Reynolds, 
$13.20;  W.  C.  Bristol,  $77.15;  H.  C.  Finkler,  $6.40;  RicHards 
&  Carrier,  $258.20;  Mrs.  M.  Moore,  $10.00;  Mr.  Webb,  $3.00; 
Mrs.  C.  Tellison,  $5.80;  D.  Young,  expert,  $25.00;  C.  D. 
Stewart,  expert,  $189.00;  G.  W.  Reynolds,  expert,  $63.00. 
Total,  $2,147.37. 

Detective  Expense:  W.  J.  Burns,  $2,416.95;  L  Ritten- 
house   et   al.,  $1,815.66.     Total,   $4,232.61. 


ea 


i  iViitzri 


g 


^mmm^    %a3AiN»^      %oJiw3-jQ>^   ^Wjol 


fie  ^nn, 

ea 


"^SM 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


IFOff^ 


NO  PHONE  RENEWALS 


%avj      REC'D 


SJS^L  DEC  10^88 

0  7  lyBci 


.      REC'D  ID-imi 

i.  oeros  1981 


'mjuiu 


MIIBRAR 


1  k  198^ 
R£C'0  1-0-^^^ 


flf,^ 


^*^'<^UN2l  J995 


"^1 


mcwJ^f'- 


4199fr 


JUN18l99b 


0/: 


'■  ft  JAN  2  3  1«>«^ 


^)^:>» 


^^ 


Q 


S)|i^l 


m\^     '^/smm-m 


>> 


^OJIIVDJO' 


iillliili 

3  1158  01030  117; 


ea 

=3  


ARYQr        A^llIBRARYQ<- 


^^WE•l)NIVER% 


^lOSANCElfx^ 


WJO'^      ^OJIIVDJO"^         <ri]3DNVS01^       %a3AINn-3WV^ 


i^     ^^Aavaan# 


^^WE•UNIVER%. 


^lOSANCElfj-^ 


'%a3AiNn]WV 


^ 


VER%       o^lOSANCElfx^ 


VER5//V 


-^lllBRAWQr^ 


^IUBRARY<?/. 


mv^     '^^mmmi^      '^<!/ojiiv3jo^    ^ojityjjo^ 


^lOSANCElfjVK 
o 


■< 

%a3AiNa-3t\v^ 


^OFCA1IFO% 


'^^AavaaiH'^ 


.^OFCA1IFO% 


^<?Aavaaii# 


lb 

fiQ 


CO 


ARYOc^       ^^l•llBRARYQr 


I 


^  «i? 


.^WEUNIVER^. 

en 


^lOSANCElfj}> 


'  >1' 


'  ,,tn  ^  1,1)1 


